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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 operat...
1 comment
Read more

Statement Functions

At a small suggestion in #python, I wrote up a simple module that allows the use of many python statements in places requiring statements. This post serves as the announcement and documentation. You can find the release here . The pattern is the statement's keyword appended with a single underscore, so the first, of course, is print_. The example writes 'some+text' to an IOString for a URL query string. This mostly follows what it seems the print function will be in py3k. print_("some", "text", outfile=query_iostring, sep="+", end="") An obvious second choice was to wrap if statements. They take a condition value, and expect a truth value or callback an an optional else value or callback. Values and callbacks are named if_true, cb_true, if_false, and cb_false. if_(raw_input("Continue?")=="Y", cb_true=play_game, cb_false=quit) Of course, often your else might be an error case, so raising an exception could be useful...
1 comment
Read more

How To Teach Software Development

How To Teach Software Development Introduction Developers Quality Control Motivation Execution Businesses Students Schools Education is broken. Education about software development is even more broken. It is a sad observation of the industry from my eyes. I come to see good developers from what should be great educations as survivors, more than anything. Do they get a headstart from their education or do they overcome it? This is the first part in a series on software education. I want to open a discussion here. Please comment if you have thoughts. Blog about it, yourself. Write about how you disagree with me. Write more if you don't. We have a troubled industry. We care enough to do something about it. We hark on the bad developers the way people used to point at freak shows, but we only hurt ourselves but not improving the situation. We have to deal with their bad code. We are the twenty percent and we can't talk to the eighty percent, by definition, so we need to impro...
4 comments
Read more