3 ms·

On the flip side, as one of those guys in the security department, it aggravates me to no end when developers can't understand why we won't allow them to open u

• logfromblammo 12y ago
  While you present a reasonable example of why certain things have to be cleared before implementing them, most of the time you are used as an excuse to issue a knee-jerk denial of some suggestion, without even bothering to consult with you first. And people at other companies are not necessarily as competent or diligent as you are about doing your job. Usually, the argument goes like this: - We cannot use X until it has been cleared by legal and/or security. - Legal and/or security do not have the resources available to clear X for our use within a time span that would allow X to be useful. - As a result, we won't even ask them to try. - Therefore, screw you, nerd. Alternately: - We don't have room in the budget to license X. - The budget won't change until after the end of the project. - We can't justify altering the budget to accommodate licensing X unless it would be useful for an ongoing project. - You won't be allowed to comment on upcoming projects until after the budget is fixed. - Therefore, screw you, nerd. Or in the worst case: - Here is a detailed proposal to use invented-elsewhere thing X in our product Y, with gobs of research and references, and oodles of possible pros and cons. - We don't understand what you are talking about. - So we're going to fixate on some tiny, mostly-irrelevant detail, and then blather about it until you go away. - Therefore, screw you, nerd.