Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
I think we would all prefer to fix the things that we find embarrassing. That said, our own vanity isn't a good enough reason to set aside or ignore the stuff that lots of customers are telling us they want and need.
|
Vanity ?
No, that's not vanity, look up any dictionary.
In personal terms, that is taking pride in your work, or in commercial terms, a QA issue. When I was a codeline engineer, we did not worry about management approval for bug fixes, we simply fixed all known bugs in the next codeline. That was an imperative, and a matter of personal pride, especially if we had written the original code (that contained the bug). Several (much larger) s/w companies that I deal with still operate the same way.
The issue of having to make decisions about what to fix or enhance, is a separate commercial matter. You've made a decision to prioritise
all work (bug fixes as well as enhancements) based on votes; that's fine, and it has
these consequences. Such as mountains of issues with customers, who quite reasonably expect something else. As evidenced in this forum.
Other companies use a more traditional model, where bugs are fixed, period, and only enhancements are prioritised based on votes, and therefore that it what customers expect. That model has
different consequences. Such as long term growth, and mountains less time re explanations on the forum.
Omni is so small, that evidently, the support (or QA) engineers are one and the same as the development engineers, and managed by the same administrators. Other companies have the two groups separated. There are good reasons for that.
Separately, if Omni management have been diminishing the professional pride of your engineers, and labelling it "vanity", then shame on them, and I pray that (a) you are free of such disgusting Godless creatures, and (b) herewith empower the engineers to reject relabelling as a dishonest and manipulative.
Cheers
Derek