Re: Who is responsible? (was living doc article)

Subject: Re: Who is responsible? (was living doc article)
From: Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 01:21:01 -0800 (PST)

--- Jeff Hanvey <jewahe -at- lycos -dot- co -dot- uk> wrote:

> Real world time again, Andrew....I only got the source code in a cheat, and
> both me and the person gave it to me were reprimanded (even though the only
> way I could see the code was to open it in word). In my organization, the
> source code is *tightly* controlled, and just *one* piece of the software
> used here is somewhere in the neighborhood of $3000 (that's not included
> the other licenses for the other parts of it). I've been trying for 6
> months to get access to the customer support database, but the licenses for
> that are restricted, too (because the company didn't buy enough, so they
> don't want to give anyone access that won't actually be entering
> information).

You didn't answer my earlier question, Jeff. Why did you need the source code?
I mean, its great if you can see it, but even I will admit that it isn't always
necessary to read the source code to properly doc an application.

Second, sounds like you need to make some friends over in customer support. Ask
one of the reps if he can help you get access to some info. You also should
start befriending any field support or pre-sales engineers. These people are a
wealth of information.

By hook or by crook, get the information.

> Again, trying to lay it all off on the writer is completely ridiculous.
> Join us here in the real world sometime, and you'll find your hands are
> tied quite often because of poor planning, poor processes, and poor
> finances.

Yes, writers are often placed in less than ideal conditions. And they will
probably produce less than ideal docs. But that doesn't get the writer off the
hook. Just because an environment is messed up doesn't suddenly make it "okay"
for the docs to be wrong. The writer still needs to take responsibility for the

> And trapped because there is nothing you can do but hammer away
> at the keyboard, make the most of what is given to you, and keep
> communicating with your supervisor.

If you paint yourself as a mere cog in a machine, with no authority then it
isn't surprising that you'll be treated like a mere cog in the machine. Or as
you put it - a hack. You defined yourself this way, not me.

Andrew Plato

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

Purchase RoboHelp X3 in April and receive a $100 mail-in
rebate, plus FREE RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.
Order here:

Help celebrate TECHWR-L's 10th Anniversary starting this month!
Check out the contests at
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday TECHWR-L....

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Re: Who is responsible? (was living doc article): From: Jeff Hanvey

Previous by Author: Re: memberships
Next by Author: Re: About responsibility and fault
Previous by Thread: Re: Who is responsible? (was living doc article)
Next by Thread: RE: Who is responsible? (was living doc article)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads