The computer (or phone, or tablet) you're using to type that comment is a direct result of the effort to put man into space. The space program gave us the integrated circuit.

After reading comments about how there are no Americans talented or qualified enough to fill this position, I have to point something out:

There are plenty of American software engineers that could do this job. There aren't plenty of American software engineers that could do this job for the crap pay they were most likely offering. It's not a matter of unwillingness, it's a matter of being able to support a family in the current environment. Corporations whine and whine about no talent being available, but what they really mean is 'there's no talent available that will work for the insulting wages we're offering, so let us hire H1Bs for pennies on the dollar who can't complain or they get deported.' Not only do they save money, they get an employee that they can more easily work into the ground than an American citizen.

The H1B system is a cruel joke perpetrated on the American worker. And before some capitalist-is-awesome-fuck-you moron says that it would kill jobs, no, it would just shrink corporate profits to the point where they make 7 kajillion dollars instead of 9.

Also, IMHO, any entity that hires contractors to do mission critical work instead of hiring full-time employees deserves everything they get.

No, it encapsulates what's wrong with project management in this industry. Failure to manage customer expectations and setting insane production deadlines isn't the developer's fault, it's the fault of the management layer that *should* be between the client and the developer.

Of course, in an ideal world, there would be someone there. There frequently isn't, or there's someone so ineffective there that it's *worse* than nobody being there. In those cases, the developer should be looking for a better job.

I hope to $deity you're not a manager. Your morale must be terrible if you do.

I have to echo other commenters: If you want well documented code, you need to allow sufficient time for said documentation to be written. Failure to do so isn't a failure in programming, it's a failure by management to build realistic timelines based on feedback from programmers.

If your programmers are constantly telling you they need more time, on project after project after project, and it's ALL of them, not just a few complainers, then you need to look in the mirror to find the source of the problem. Go to sales/marketing, read them the riot act about promising impossible deadlines, and get THEM fired if they continue to promise unicorns on a wombat budget.

If by "completely unreasonable" you mean "wants to solve the problem in the most efficient way", then yeah, I'm unreasonable. I could give a shit about sales. I leave that to the salesweasels. What I'm 'rallying' against is rejecting a legitimate solution because it doesn't make any money, in favor of a less efficient solution that happens to make you more money. If you solve the customer's problem, they'll continue to be your customer. Trying to squeeze as much money out of them as you can will drive them to the competition anyway.

Perhaps, but my experience is that for every 'legitimate' feature Sales wants to add, there's a feature that's just completely retarded.

It's all irrelevant most of the time anyway, as Sales only consults with Engineering after they've promised the customer the sun moon and stars and it's up to Engineering to make the impossible happen, lest the customer go somewhere else. Not sales' problem at that point, they've made their money.

But it's clear you didn't want Engineering's input at that meeting, so why were they there?

What they want here, as far as I can tell, is to charge money to solve a problem that is already solved elsewhere. The engineer's response is correct, IF you actually want to solve the problem. If you want to give the customer another problem that you can then heroically step in and fix (also known as 'fuck them over') then his response was inappropriate.

No, you have engineers fighting them on it because the sales person's solution is stupid. The engineer identified the problem and provided a solution. If you don't want your engineers doing that, don't invite them to the meeting. Also, don't invite them if you don't give two fucks about your engineers' morale.

They're involving engineering in the discussion but they don't want engineering to do their jobs (ie fixing problems). If your salesweasels weren't morons, they'd realize that they can charge time to install the systems in question, then make more money supporting it. Several problems solved, money made, customer not ripped off. Win-win-win.

No, he's pushing back on the request because it's fucking stupid. IT'S A SOLVED PROBLEM. Why re-invent the wheel?

Sales people reasonable? I haven't met a reasonable one yet, and I've worked in a bunch of places in several industries. The common factor is that sales over-promises solutions, and the people who do actual work are left holding the bag while the salesweasel cashes his bonus check.

Making nice things involves communicating. If it's clear that your boss is not interested in communicating, only ordering you around, then give him enough rope, and dust off your resume.

"You're fired." - C-level executive who just flexed his ego at you, to which you responded by saying "that's against the rules".

C-levels don't get to C-level by following rules. They get there by screwing over the other guy, rules be damned. When I used to work in corporate desktop support, almost on a daily basis I would answer a question with "I'm sorry, I can't do that, it's against policy," only to have said C-level call my boss and demand that I be fired for refusing. Nevermind that the rule was based on logic or reason (or in some cases, legality), when The Vice President Of Things That Start With H On Alternate Tuesdays decides that the password policy doesn't apply to them, they expect you to ask 'how high' when they say 'jump'. Forget that you don't have the power to override the policy, forget that the policy exists for a damn good reason, forget everything except the fact that said VP or C-level can fire you on the spot.