4 ms·

I hear you, but I'm suggesting that this trait is part of what differentiates a good engineer. If I'm hiring someone and they have a bunch of recent moves that

I hear you, but I'm suggesting that this trait is part of what differentiates a good engineer. If I'm hiring someone and they have a bunch of recent moves that are stemmed from reasons like "they wanted to use some process that I refused to try" or "they made us go through some training that I thought was a waste of time", then I consider that to be a very risky candidate. There should honestly be some good faith on both sides. It doesn't make sense for a job, in most cases, to be strict about an editor. But it's also not a good move for eng to be walking around talking about all the fragile things they'll quit abruptly for.

blueplanet200 5y ago
> stemmed from reasons like "they wanted to use some process that I refused to try" or "they made us go through some training that I thought was a waste of time", then I consider that to be a very risky candidate. I feel like you're gradually making this hypothetical engineer seem more ridiculous. If someone quit over training or their unwillingness to try scrum, that would be bananas of course. There's an extremely large gap between that and mandating the main tool to use to do your job everyday.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
Totally, I think if something is making you quit it must be pretty annoying - or you wouldn't risk trading the known with the unknown (which can very well end up being worse). I also wouldn't mention the real reason in a future job interview, if it sounds ridiculous. That said, small things can look trivial from the outside and make your life a living hell at the same time.