• dave (unregistered)

    The email he sent is eerily similar to what I (we?) receive when I file a request for anything more complicated than a new mouse pad. Even then, it can still take weeks.

  • ath (unregistered)

    The world would be a much better place if all bosses only had "I/We" speaches... So, what's the WTF? Must be the draconian safety measures he's trying to impose ;) Oh, and FIST.

  • (cs)

    Good story. The reviews that he wanted were the right measures, but in order to get people on board, it helps to work with the grain. Being gruff about everything didn't help things much. It was a good transition to use the team thinging approach to enforce the policies instead of just getting mad at the people who broke them.

  • (cs)

    No WTF here. Shawn got an annoying but harmless lecture about teamwork, after which he actually started properly implementing policies. Seems like the system worked.

  • (cs)

    We think this article was longwinded. We would like to see it cut in almost half per the policies we put in place. IT would be best for us if there was less back story so we could read it in less time.

    Thanks --The WTF team.

  • Troy McClure (unregistered)

    Sorry but a dba has no business checking over my code. They wouldn't want me checking over the init.ora parameters. DBA's are paid to administer the database, and not develop shit in it. I'd tell Shawn where he could go stick it.

  • IAn (unregistered)

    Try: Every DBA worth his/her salt has every right to review your code. If your code breaks the database, or simply runs too slow - who gets the bite - right!

  • The Undroid (unregistered)

    And this little DBA went We, We, We, all the way home.

    @Troy: not even even if you code Cartesian joins?

  • (cs)

    We like the story. We expecially like the picture. We think the bosses (perhaps long winded) chat seems to have worked. We think DBA's shouldn't be reviewing code, but should be reviewing changes to DB structure as they are responsible when stuff breaks. We have a hard time thinking of ourselves in the plural. We... we... damn, now "we" gotta go wee...

  • sweavo (unregistered)

    No sympathy for shawn here. He needs to grow up.

  • sweavo (unregistered)

    and my ass -> butt joke was moderated. I protest.

  • Congo (unregistered) in reply to The Undroid

    Sometimes cartesian joins are useful.

  • Henrik (unregistered)
    Article:
    “Got it,” Shawn replied. Unfortunately, though, his boss didn’t seem to hear that, or any of his subsequent “okay,” “will do”, “gotcha”, “allrightythen”, “okie-doke”, “you-betcha” responses.
    Sounds like a boss alright. I think they are all hard of hearing or something. Or they're just not paying much attention.
  • GregP (unregistered)

    I don't have any studies on hand to support it, but in general using inclusive words such as "we" and "us" gets a better response from people - it allows them to talk ownership of an issue, even when they can't really do anything. They suddenly have a stake in fixing things, instead of just passing the problem off to someone else.

    So if Shawn was giving the impression that it was him against the rest of the company the others would band together against him in decisions - even when he was right. By actually changing his strategy he'd have a better chance of them following procedure because all of them would have a stake in providing higher quality.

    Now just doing a replace-all in an email won't help, it usually requires a completes change of outlook, so depending on the real circumstances "Behavioral Deficiencies" may or may not be too far from the mark.

  • Barf 4Eva (unregistered) in reply to IAn
    IAn:
    Try: Every DBA worth his/her salt has every right to review your code. If your code breaks the database, or simply runs too slow - who gets the bite - right!

    Sooooo true, IAn. However, even though planning for every developer error is a must, enforcing constraints/DRI where appropriate, should alleviate most of the issues where code breaks the database. But in the cases that don't, I think it's worth a backend code review, and it's DEFINITELY worth the review from the perspective of simply running too slow due to poor query design. And if you don't have any solid devs in data access, then I'd review every bit of data access code without hesitation.

  • My Code's compiling (unregistered)

    And they said pluralis majestatis went out of style a century ago - that'll show them.

  • APH (unregistered) in reply to Troy McClure
    Troy McClure:
    Sorry but a dba has no business checking over my code. They wouldn't want me checking over the init.ora parameters. DBA's are paid to administer the database, and not develop shit in it. I'd tell Shawn where he could go stick it.
    Man, you have no idea what you're talking about. Granted, there are some DBAs whose sole purpose in life is to inflict painful restrictions on developers (no stored procedures, no views, or worse). But really, DBAs should be considered a source of knowledge. Understanding how the database works (inside and out) is their JOB.

    As a programmer, you're expected to write reasonably efficient and correct code to solve a problem. As a DBA, you're expected to ensure the stable and proper operation of the database. Those two roles need to work cooperatively, not combatively, to give the customer the best experience possible. If the DBA sets up the database with bad init.ora parameters I should be able to call them on that, just as they should criticize the programmer who creates a gaping SQL injection vulnerability.

    Teamwork, try it.

  • (cs)

    The WTF here is a "Database Code Review Council" - who the fuck has these??

    Although I like the idea of wearing robes and dimming the lights. If I ever have a real team to manage, I'm going to wear my Jedi robes to meetings (you thought it was just a screen name, didn't you? Noep!)

  • (cs) in reply to Congo
    Congo:
    Sometimes cartesian joins are useful.

    Precisely. We have used exactly one in our 12-year career, even though we've developed massive database systems.

  • JeremyB (unregistered)

    Perhaps there is more than one WTF here.

    1. The insane control freak DBA.

    2. The boss that cares about I/We in emails.

    3. The author of this post thinking that this was a good story.

  • Rob (unregistered) in reply to DeLos

    We disagree. We feel that it was a good, well written story. We do not particularly care for stories on The Daily WTF that are only a few sentences long. We like entertainment in the morning.

  • Bob (unregistered)

    TRWTF is the number of typos in an otherwise humorous story.

  • DKO (unregistered)

    We (no pun intended, really... this joke was overused already) need a "non-WTF" category for stories like this. As a plus, there will be no need for "WTF? There is no WTF on this story!" comments.

  • smeagol (unregistered)

    They're thieves! They're thieves! They're filthy little thieves! Where is it? Where is it? They stole it from us, our precious. Curse them! WE hates them! it's ours it is, and we wants it! We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

  • BillLumbergh (unregistered)

    Yeah, ... we need you to go ahead and use the word 'we' instead of 'I' in all of your emails. Did you get the memo on using the word 'we'? We'll make sure you get that memo. Hmkay...?

  • (cs)

    This DBA needs to learn a lesson from the "Clbuttic WTF" and just filter his e-mails through a script that changes "I" to "We." Example:

    "I've gone ahead an implemented the changes"

    becomes:

    "We've gone ahead an wemplemented the changes"

    Done and done!

  • Medinoc (unregistered)

    We are DBA. We are legion.

  • A. Cube (unregistered)

    We are Borg. Your database will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

  • (cs)

    I once got called into an "Attitude readjustment" meeting. How boss thinks these kind of pep talks can possibly help the situation, i will never know...

  • (cs) in reply to A. Cube
    A. Cube:
    We are Borg. Your database will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
    Nah, all he had to say to the boss was: "We will comply!"
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Outlaw Programmer
    Outlaw Programmer:
    This DBA needs to learn a lesson from the "Clbuttic WTF" and just filter his e-mails through a script that changes "I" to "We." Example:

    "I've gone ahead an implemented the changes"

    becomes:

    "We've gone ahead an wemplemented the changes"

    Done and done!

    Except you don't need to change the lowercase Is, just the uppercase Is. So there's no need for "implemented" to become "wemplemented" using a properly designed regex.

    Although people may start to wonder who this new Oracle competitor "WBM" is, and why you're always having problems with the WT department.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Outlaw Programmer:
    This DBA needs to learn a lesson from the "Clbuttic WTF" and just filter his e-mails through a script that changes "I" to "We." Example:

    "I've gone ahead an implemented the changes"

    becomes:

    "We've gone ahead an wemplemented the changes"

    Done and done!

    Except you don't need to change the lowercase Is, just the uppercase Is. So there's no need for "implemented" to become "wemplemented" using a properly designed regex.

    Although people may start to wonder who this new Oracle competitor "WBM" is, and why you're always having problems with the WT department.

    It was a joke. Someone already pointed out a simple replace-all isn't going to work because you might turn "I am" into "We am."

    I'm going to start handing out coupons for 50% off Sarcasm Detector repairs (while supplies last).

  • (cs)
    the story:
    strategy had gone from went from being "cutting edge"

    you’re not feeling thinking team.

    Note from Alex: Fixed! This is why I try to avoid writing after midnight...

    ath:
    speaches
    GregP:
    to talk ownership of an issue
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Noep!
    Outlaw Programmer:
    gone ahead an implemented
    Now that the writers are no longer on strike, it seems the proofreaders are.

  • (cs) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Outlaw Programmer:
    gone ahead an implemented
    Now that the writers are no longer on strike, it seems the proofreaders are.

    The real WTF is that Alex went ahead and edited my post (he added the link to the other story) but he left the typos in place. Some editor you are!

  • (cs)

    I used to think the "royal we" was bad - then I got married and learned about it's logical opposite - "marital we". Nothing fills me with dread like hearing "We need to clean out the garage", or "We need to buy less stuff", or to a friend "We'd be happy to take care of your pets".

  • (cs) in reply to GregP
    GregP:
    I don't have any studies on hand to support it, but in general using inclusive words such as "we" and "us" gets a better response from people - it allows them to talk ownership of an issue, even when they can't really do anything. They suddenly have a stake in fixing things, instead of just passing the problem off to someone else.

    I apparently work in a more political environment than you. I don't see it as a case of "we're all a team, happy flowery togetherness" so much as "strength in numbers". If the guy you're arguing with admits he's alone, he's just revealed his weakness. Take advantage of it!

    But if he says "we", you don't know who he's allied with. Maybe it's the CEO, maybe it's a band of armed thugs waiting back at your cubicle, oor maybe he's just a schizo. Either way, you don't mess with that guy.

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to Henrik
    Henrik:
    Article:
    “Got it,” Shawn replied. Unfortunately, though, his boss didn’t seem to hear that, or any of his subsequent “okay,” “will do”, “gotcha”, “allrightythen”, “okie-doke”, “you-betcha” responses.
    Sounds like a boss alright. I think they are all hard of hearing or something. Or they're just not paying much attention.

    I think the best way to deal with boss is to gradually reduce your response. If you sustain or increase your response you encourage them to believe you want to hear their voice.

    1. I understand, thank you
    2. I understand
    3. I gotcha
    4. I got it
    5. gotcha
    6. got it
    7. thanks
    8. yep
    9. ????
    10. profit

    Or you could just not say anything until they ask you to leave.

  • Zeke (unregistered) in reply to Outlaw Programmer

    If you mention Team or Teamwork, you don't have it.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Outlaw Programmer
    Outlaw Programmer:
    It was a joke. Someone already pointed out a simple replace-all isn't going to work because you might turn "I am" into "We am."

    I'm going to start handing out coupons for 50% off Sarcasm Detector repairs (while supplies last).

    No kidding, really?

    I thought by adding the reference to WBM and WT I'd make it clear that I was trying to make a joke (although I screwed it up since those should have been WeBM and WeT, which are actually slightly funnier).

    But I should have known better than to respond to a joke with another joke.

    Although replacing all instances of capital I with "We" still creates funny sentences. In your post, it'd come up with "We'm" and cause a neat sort of "royal We" effect, where We is always capitalized.

  • (cs) in reply to GregP
    GregP:
    I don't have any studies on hand to support it, but in general using inclusive words such as "we" and "us" gets a better response from people - it allows them to talk ownership of an issue, even when they can't really do anything. They suddenly have a stake in fixing things, instead of just passing the problem off to someone else.

    So if Shawn was giving the impression that it was him against the rest of the company the others would band together against him in decisions - even when he was right. By actually changing his strategy he'd have a better chance of them following procedure because all of them would have a stake in providing higher quality.

    Now just doing a replace-all in an email won't help, it usually requires a completes change of outlook, so depending on the real circumstances "Behavioral Deficiencies" may or may not be too far from the mark.

    Anyone else want to hold hands and sing "Kumbayah?"

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Except you don't need to change the lowercase Is, just the uppercase Is. So there's no need for "implemented" to become "wemplemented" using a properly designed regex.

    Although people may start to wonder who this new Oracle competitor "WBM" is, and why you're always having problems with the WT department.

    Wef you use such a filter, you get WeBM, and the WeT department, trying to fix your Wenternet connection from Wendianapolis to your outsourcing partners in Wendia.

  • m (unregistered) in reply to GregP

    we don't have any studwees on hand to support wet, but wen general usweng wenclusweve words such as "we" and "us" gets a better response from people - wet allows them to talk ownershwep of an wessue, even when they can't really do anythweng. They suddenly have a stake wen fwexweng thwengs, wenstead of just passweng the problem off to someone else.

    So wef Shawn was gwevweng the wempressweon that wet was hwem agawenst the rest of the company the others would band together agawenst hwem wen decwesweons - even when he was rweght. By actually changweng hwes strategy he'd have a better chance of them followweng procedure because all of them would have a stake wen provwedweng hwegher qualwety.

    Now just doweng a replace-all wen an emawel won't help, wet usually requweres a completes change of outlook, so dependweng on the real cwercumstances "Behavweoral Defwecweencwees" may or may not be too far from the mark.

    ------ We think a replace all will be fine.

  • Permissive Unfun (unregistered) in reply to GregP
    GregP:
    it allows them to talk ownership of an issue, even when they can't really do anything.

    I was going to ask how "talk[ing] ownership" is different than "taking ownership" but I think the "they can't really do anything" part makes that clear...

  • jimi (unregistered)

    Ok, so WTF is the WTF here? That Shawn was unable to do the job he was hired to do without a bit of a jargon speech from his boss? Granted, the speech is full of catch phrases but the point is there - get off your ass and do your job. Shawn was ineffectual and failing, the boss corrected that, so in my opinion the real WTF is Shawn's lame excuses and whining - typical DBA.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    But I should have known better than to respond to a joke with another joke.

    Ah, yes, the classic "I was only joking" defense. This, truly, is an amazing WTF.

    Whenever anyone on the Internet gets called out for being a complete idiot, they instantly were "only joking" and the person calling them for being a complete and utter moron suddenly becomes "the real idiot" because they didn't notice that a factually incorrect post completely devoid of any humor was somehow a "joke".

    Sorry, but you fail. The only way for something to be a joke is for it to be funny. If it isn't funny, it's not a joke: it's just stupid.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    In your post, it'd come up with "We'm" and cause a neat sort of "royal We" effect
    Now you've done it. I'll have that song playing in my head all day long:

    A We'm a wep, a We'm a wep, a We'm a wep, a We'm a wep In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps toniiiiiiiight

  • (cs) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Anonymous:
    In your post, it'd come up with "We'm" and cause a neat sort of "royal We" effect
    Now you've done it. I'll have that song playing in my head all day long:

    A We'm a wep, a We'm a wep, a We'm a wep, a We'm a wep Wen the jungle, the mweghty jungle, the lweon sleeps tonweweweweweweweweght

    There, fixed that for you.

  • D-Coder (unregistered) in reply to obediah
    obediah:
    I used to think the "royal we" was bad - then I got married and learned about it's logical opposite - "marital we". Nothing fills me with dread like hearing "We need to clean out the garage", or "We need to buy less stuff", or to a friend "We'd be happy to take care of your pets".

    Related to this, see http://www.panix.com/~dwolff/docs/uxi.html .

  • Ozzy (unregistered)

    The interview from hell I had looking for a job out of college. The interviewer was the HR director, and not at all technical. Every question, or should I say, statement, started with "Share with me your thoughts about..."

    I felt like I was in a hippy commune. I didn't get the job.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    So there's no need for "implemented" to become "wemplemented" using a properly designed regex.

    You must be new here.

Leave a comment on “Behavioral Deficiencies ”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article