Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Idk, I don't see anyone underrating her :) I think she's appreciated in here
theabbie4330129dShe's not underrated, she's just there, doing her part
Building someone an altar or praising isn't helpful.
Imho it's everyones free will and own decision to be supportive.
Just be thankful. And embrace the supportive way.
Valueing a person based on his contributions is wrong.
Expecting a person to be XY is wrong.
The statement rubs me in a very wrong way... Don't idolize a person.
> Valueing a person based on his contributions is wrong.
I'm not sure I can agree. There's not much left to value the person by.. Eyes colour perhaps?
In my [possibly wrong?] opinion, the more the person contributes to _something_, the more it is valuable to that _something_.
It's a dangerous path - when someone is consistently contfibuting, but behaves like an psychopath and actively terrorizes other team members, his contributions may have a value... But the value cannout outweigh the consequence that all his contributions are for nuts, since he isolated himself and is a SPOF. Contributions are one part - personality, behaviour, skills, strength -/ weaknesses are important, too.
The other aspect (and why I'm against idolozing)... It creates an instable team.
Team members start relying on one person, let's name him torch bearer, and as soon as the torch bearer is not available, whole team falls apart.
Torch bearers are those persons who get overloaded with work "because they know best" - usually leading to burn out / health issues.
Balance is important in a team.
And one of the very clear signs that there is a torch bearer in a team is when people start idolizing.
It's a clear sign that something goes very wrong. ;)
I realized it just now that my previous answer was - simply put - my alarm bells in my head going crazy because from experience it ends bad TM.
One does not go against the other.
I understand what you are saying and I see where you're coming from. However, please make a distinction between the primary receiver of the value and the secondary ones.
In your cases, what is the primary receiver? The project or the team? Because the project != the team ;) Teams can be mobilized. Projects can get new teams, even new owners (speaking from experience).
If you identify the project as the primary receiver of the value, then I believe I am right - the one who contributes the most to the project has given the most to the project, i.e. has been the most valuable one to the project.
If you identify the team as the primary receiver - then the TL is probably the most valuable, as it [at least should] assures the team's growth, slack time, removes the bus factors and keeps an eye on the potential torchbearers.
@IntrusionCM When it comes to "the value", one must ALWAYS identify at least who is the receiver of the value and what the value is. Otherwise, it's but a vague expression that sounds smart and means absolutely nothing.
And in this particular case: contribution to what? And what kind of contribution?
1. To the dR community: contributing to the levels of FUN: definitely some folks among the joke/meme posters!
2. To the dR project: contr to the QoS: Definitely David and Tim, and no one else.
3. To the dR community: contr to the members' technical KB: many ranters, like you, sortoftested, fastnop, hakx20 to name a few, but there are many more members who have boosted our tech knowledge!
I do hope you see the difference and get my point. And see why I cannot agree with that statement of yours.
@netikras I think you've given this a whole lot more thought than I did. We're talking about something that sounds "the same", but isn't even close to being the same.
My initial trigger was based on behaviourism.
I saw this post and thought... Duh... That's a bad omen. My second post and my statement regarding value tried to explain why I'm thinking that this behaviour is "bad TM".
We've an different angle / perspective here - your second answer is right - without defining what value means, it's pretty pointless to talk about it.
And that's the part where it gets... difficult ^^.
It's really hard to explain... My point of view stems from a bird of view perspective.
I don't see a team, I don't see a project.
First and foremost I see human interaction and try to start there. Team and project are for me not irrelevant, but they come "far far far" later into perspective.
So... "value" is for me: how does Person A influence Person B?
Apologies if this came out the wrong way ;)