3 ms·

>Let’s say hypothetically that the company does not have a work issued laptop Why not provide a laptop? >that the company has invited developers to the organi

>Let’s say hypothetically that the company does not have a work issued laptop Why not provide a laptop? >that the company has invited developers to the organization with their personal github accounts. Why do that? >For instance, a developer worked for your company for two years, but is no longer there, and has leaked some production code he wrote to show to a recruiter/developer? That would be silly. I wouldn't like it if someone applying to our company showed us their current/previous employer's IP. That would be like someone showing nudes of their current/former partners to "prsospective" partners. It just does not compute, unless if the context were precisely about that. A lot of this is based on trust in my opinion. >Another example would be a current malicious employee who posts code snippets of your super custom trading algo to github as part of his next job search or while trying to land a contracting deal? Ask them not to. Also, non disclosure agreements and contract clauses. Most people just don't do that. You're listing some of the worst behavior that is not "normal" or "typical". NDAs and contracts. It helps to hire better, improve work conditions, and be a better organizations [not doing unethical stuff that pushes employees to rationalize doing this, and others to think you deserve it].

wlll 6y ago
>> that the company has invited developers to the organization with their personal github accounts. > Why do that? Why not? You can remove someone from a project as easily with the developers existing login as with a new company created one, what benefit does it have? If you don't need to do this I suggest you don't. It's a PITA, and another small thing that adds to the annoyance of working somewhre and the feelings of lack of trust.
- Jugurtha 6y ago
  My comment assumed, wrongly I think, that the company invited developers specifically with their personal github accounts. As in, please use your personal account. That assumption was encouraged by the fact their employees use their personal laptops. I naturally asked about the reasons of both.
  - wlll 6y ago
    As far as I can tell there's no difference between a "personal" Github account and any other.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Using personal GitHub accounts really isn’t as big of a deal as people assume. GitHub disables forking of private repos by default, but even if you enable it you can still revoke forks of private repos from people later. Obviously people can manually clone your repo using git, but that’s no different than any other git scenario. The idea that using GitHub will lead to people accidentally making your code public is just not true. > That would be silly. I wouldn't like it if someone applying to our company showed us their current/previous employer's IP. That would be like someone showing nudes of their current/former partners to "prsospective" partners. It just does not compute, unless if the context were precisely about that. A lot of this is based on trust in my opinion. It’s silly, but it’s also a shockingly common impulse among some junior developers. When I was mentoring juniors, it was not uncommon for young people to feel like they had some ownership of the code they wrote for a company, or a tool they wrote to help their work. I spent a lot of time explaining the concepts of work-for-hire and IP ownership. Many young devs just don’t even like the idea of IP ownership or the fact that the company literally owns work they did. You’re exactly right that no sensible company wants to be exposed to IP from another company, but usually the people who do this don’t understand IP ownership in the first place. I know it sounds hard to believe, but they literally think they have the rights to the code because they wrote it. The only real defense is to take the time to educate employees during onboarding. Don’t assume that everyone understands how IP ownership works. Many junior employees don’t.
- Jugurtha 6y ago
  >The only real defense is to take the time to educate employees during onboarding. Don’t assume that everyone understands how IP ownership works. Many junior employees don’t. Examples may be needed. "If you build someone a house, you can't just put it on Airbnb and collect rent on it." "If you start a company, you just can't empty the bank account and go to vegas." - This one put a lot of people in jail because they don't get the concept of "legal entity" and think it's my company and I can do whatever I want. I hear your points.

wlll 6y ago

>> that the company has invited developers to the organization with their personal github accounts. > Why do that? Why not? You can remove someone from a project as easily with the developers existing login as with a new company created one, what benefit does it have? If you don't need to do this I suggest you don't. It's a PITA, and another small thing that adds to the annoyance of working somewhre and the feelings of lack of trust.

Jugurtha 6y ago
My comment assumed, wrongly I think, that the company invited developers specifically with their personal github accounts. As in, please use your personal account. That assumption was encouraged by the fact their employees use their personal laptops. I naturally asked about the reasons of both.
- wlll 6y ago
  As far as I can tell there's no difference between a "personal" Github account and any other.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Using personal GitHub accounts really isn’t as big of a deal as people assume. GitHub disables forking of private repos by default, but even if you enable it you can still revoke forks of private repos from people later. Obviously people can manually clone your repo using git, but that’s no different than any other git scenario. The idea that using GitHub will lead to people accidentally making your code public is just not true. > That would be silly. I wouldn't like it if someone applying to our company showed us their current/previous employer's IP. That would be like someone showing nudes of their current/former partners to "prsospective" partners. It just does not compute, unless if the context were precisely about that. A lot of this is based on trust in my opinion. It’s silly, but it’s also a shockingly common impulse among some junior developers. When I was mentoring juniors, it was not uncommon for young people to feel like they had some ownership of the code they wrote for a company, or a tool they wrote to help their work. I spent a lot of time explaining the concepts of work-for-hire and IP ownership. Many young devs just don’t even like the idea of IP ownership or the fact that the company literally owns work they did. You’re exactly right that no sensible company wants to be exposed to IP from another company, but usually the people who do this don’t understand IP ownership in the first place. I know it sounds hard to believe, but they literally think they have the rights to the code because they wrote it. The only real defense is to take the time to educate employees during onboarding. Don’t assume that everyone understands how IP ownership works. Many junior employees don’t.

Jugurtha 6y ago
>The only real defense is to take the time to educate employees during onboarding. Don’t assume that everyone understands how IP ownership works. Many junior employees don’t. Examples may be needed. "If you build someone a house, you can't just put it on Airbnb and collect rent on it." "If you start a company, you just can't empty the bank account and go to vegas." - This one put a lot of people in jail because they don't get the concept of "legal entity" and think it's my company and I can do whatever I want. I hear your points.