Skip to main content

Two Weeks Into the New Job: What’s Working and What Isn’t?

Not counting my orientation I’ve now completed two weeks of work in the new job as a Quality Engineer at Red Hat. There’s been adjustment and learning and getting to know a new team and HR paperwork and fun and rough edges.

I think its a good time to take a step back and figure out what’s going well and what isn’t and how to turn some of the later into the former.

So, let’s start with the good. What’s been going well at the new job?

  • The product I’m on the QE team for is built using the back-end and front-end web technologies I’ve been using for a decade in some areas (Django) and at least years in others (React). Without even peering inside this has already given em some insight that’s made the transition and some of testing a lot easier. Familiarity is helpful even when I’m not directly building the product, it turns out.
  • At all levels I’m clearly supported in my transition and see the same support going to other recent additions, so I feel pretty comfortable experimenting and exploring where I feel I need.
  • Respect is going both ways. Even as the New Guy I don’t feel like I can’t speak up to argue against a point. The rest of the team is immediately accepting of my input as if we’d been working together for months. I think that goes both ways, because I definitely need to rely on the assumptions of their knowledge and when I reach out I’m confident of getting what I need.

But, a new job is still a new environment, a new workflow with new expectations, and a differnet technology stack and practice. With all the positives and the remarkably smooth transition there’s still bound to be some rough edges.
  • I’m set in my ways after a decade building the same kind of products with largely the same stacks and teams! The move into a team that uses much  of the same technology also means a move to a team that uses that technology differently. That doesn’t mean wrongly, of course, but I am a developer with strong opinions about the ways I do things. I think there’s more room to push for the cases where I’d like to change something for subjective reasons, but so far I’m still finding the accepted edges around which I can make those pushes.
  • Quality Engineering is a top-down view and I have deeply ingrained experience with a bottom-up view of building software. I’m not yet used to focusing on production and production-like environments rather than light developer environments for my day-to-day work. There’s some overhead involved in essentially a QA role that, as a developer in my previous role, I have really strong urges to strip away. Removing those layers would be a detriment to the whole point of the end-to-end tests we need to do, so I have to fight it.
  • The deep knowledge and established practices of Quality Assurance and Engineering is pretty foreign to me as an explicit pursuit. Sure, I’ve tested my software and I’ve worked with QA professionals. What I lack is a lot of the cultural experience that this niche of the software industry has built up, just like the niches I’ve been a part of in the past. That’s something I can learn from a vast selection of material, but a lot of it will take time to absorb through working with more experienced folks and just gaining my own experience slowly.

Of course, I hope that I can continue to have more of the positive experiences than the negatives experiences. So far, that has absolutely been in the case. I’ve already made good contributions to the work and I’m sure I’m in a positive to do some great work. That’s exciting! I’m not under any illusions that I’m walking in like a rock star. I know there’s an enormous amount I have to learn, but I’m likewise realistic in that I understand my own experience is still bringing a lot to the table.

It feels good to be confident. Is also feels good to have so much to learn.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…