Rename Perl 5? Marketing: UR DOIN IT WRONG

Earlier this month Ovid once again raised the question: Should we rename Perl?”

As usual, the question sparked a flurry of opinions on the matter. Most of the discussion occurred in the comments of Ovid’s original post.

I’m not here to chime in on that question. Whether the name should change or should not, what it should change to, when it would happen, these questions are all closed. RJBS has said there will be no change right now and that’s that. He is driving the Perl 5 bus right now. If he says the name is not changing then that’s good enough for me. Discussion closed.

No, I’m not here to discuss that matter. I’m here to point something out:

Damn, team. That was some dismal marketing I just witnessed.

Just what exactly is the problem you’re looking to solve here? Where are the metrics to support that? Whom are you looking to convince? How will the solution be rolled out? Who’s going to do the work? What’s it going to cost? How will you know when the work is done? How will you know whether it’s working?

None of the people participating in the conversation would ever consider releasing a small patch to a CPAN module without first having a complete set of tests for it. Yet the same people seem to have no problem changing something as fundamental as the name of the language without performing some sort of market research and testing.

Despite the reputation its earned, marketing is not a crap shoot. A successful marketing or branding campaign requires just as much forethought and carefully considered execution as a good piece of software. You don’t just throw it together, put it out there and hope it does what the target audience needs. It could be impossible to recover from the damage caused by rash branding decisions.

I would welcome nothing more than more discussions about whether Perl 5 should be renamed. But I would like them to be as well researched and considered as any other change which would be made to the language itself.

Putting Away My Pitchfork: The Yahoo Remote Worker Announcement

On February 22nd, 2013, Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer announced that all remote employees will be required to work from their local Yahoo! office by June.

The internet grabbed its pitchforks and lit its torches then exploded with anger and derision.

Does this announcement place a hardship on remote Yahoo! employees? Probably.

Is this a draconian move by Mayer? It seems that way.

Would I have done the same in her place? I don’t know. And neither do you.

The fact of the matter is that none of us are in her place. As a company, Yahoo! has been foundering for years and Mayer is now at the wheel trying to right the ship. I’m not their CEO. Neither are you (unless you actually are Marissa, in which case, “Hi!”).

To be entirely clear and open: My initial reaction to the announcement was horror and anger. I am a supporter of remote working arrangements, and not only because I have one myself. I realize that there are good people everywhere and setting up an infrastructure to support remote workers allows companies to find the best people for the job, no matter where they’re located. However I also realize that without the appropriate infrastructure a remote working arrangement can be disastrous to a product and a company. It’s not for everyone. It’s not for every company.

Mayer is many things, but one thing she is not is a fool. Before this decision was announced she knew it wouldn’t play in Peoria. She knew there would be PR fallout. She knew the internet would cast her in the role of the wicked witch. She also knew a hell of a lot of other details to which none of us are privy.

This could not have been a swift decision, made in a moment of passion. Undoubtedly it was researched, calculated and discussed ad nauseam. Without access to that research and the discussions around it, none of us can know whether this is a good decision for Yahoo!.

I feel for the Yahooligans who now must uproot their working lives, I truly do. But I’m going to resist my impulse to pillory Marissa Mayer for her decision until I know more about what led to it.

Is it OK to apply at a company which doesn’t excite you?

A question which just arrived at my desk:

There’s a company that has some openings for what I do. I’ve met with a couple of employees from there and wasn’t wowed by what the place is doing. Is it OK for me to apply or would that be unethical?

To answer the question: Yes, it’s OK for him to apply and No it’s not unethical. There are two reasons for this.

First of all, this is only an application and—as we all know—submitting an application is no guarantee of getting an interview. Even with the contacts he’s already made at the company, it’s possible that his skill set won’t be what the hiring manager needs or that someone else better fits the bill. There is no risk to him in applying for the position.

Secondly, speaking with a couple of current employees of the company may not have given him the information he needs to judge whether he would enjoy working there. I applaud that he’s taken the time to sit down and chat with these people. Ideally this is a step everyone would be able to take in their job hunting process. It is, however, only half of a picture. The other half comes with the interview, when he’s able to speak with a broader range of people within the company, including managers who may be able to give him the lowdown on the exciting things planned for the team. It may be that once he’s spoken with more people he’ll decide that it’s a company and a project he really believes in, but he’s not going to know for sure until after that interview.

Applying for the position allows the company to decide whether he might be right for them. Interviewing allows both parties to decide whether they are right for each other. Both steps are purely fact-finding in nature. There’s no risk. There’s no commitment.

The question of ethics comes in when and/or if a job offer is made. If, after all of the steps in the interview process, this man is still not particularly interested in the company then it’s best for all involved that he not accept the offer. To commit to a job and a company which you don’t really want leads you to have a life of drudgery, which is bad enough, but it’s also disingenuous to your new coworkers. They assume you’re there because you want to be there and that you care as much as they do about the mission of the team. Accepting a job just so you can phone it in and collect a paycheck is a dishonorable way to make a living.

Of course there are always going to be exceptions to this rule. For instance, if you’ve been out of work for a long while and need any job to keep the children fed and the mortgage paid then, by all means, accept the job you are offered rather than await the one of your dreams. There will be time enough to trade up once you’ve provided some security for your family. Exceptions aside, it’s generally a bad idea to accept a job about which you feel, at best, ambivalent.

Many thanks go to this anonymous gentleman who sent this question my way. As a tech hiring manager it’s a relief to see people who really think and care about their careers.

On a related note: if any readers are looking for a skilled technical project manager who is as friendly as he is knowledgable, I may know someone in the market. Drop me a line and we’ll talk.