This sounds almost exactly like our senior-level "software engineering" course (CS445, I think?) at UAB (http://www.uab.edu/).
A "guest lecturer" (usually the same guy -- a UAB grad and founder of a local medium-sized consulting firm) was in charge of the class, and after a brief overview of what the class would entail, we were instructed to group ourselves into teams in charge of Requirements-gathering, Implementation/Interface design, QA, Documentation, etc., etc. Each 2-3 weeks, we'd focus on "the next step" of the methodology/lifecycle, while the students responsible for that piece of the puzzle would work together and (eventually) produce whatever deliverable was appropriate...
I don't recall how or why, but somehow I ended up as the "Project Lead" -- so I, and my unwitting teammates, found ourselves stressed for the entire quarter, as we were ultimately responsible for taking whatever our classmates "spat out" and presenting it to the Prof (the "Client" for sake of the project). The rest of the "teams" simply did whatever was required of them (eg, preparing a requirements document, programming a prototype, etc) and then took a few weeks off, after the fire was no longer under their respective asses.:)
The key to all of this -- well, *keys*, because I think there were probably two major reasons why this class stuck with me through the years -- were:
(1) The "outsider" as professor/client/judge was a useful model to prepare us for the real world... Here we were, a class of almost-graduates, and yet our respective development backgrounds were almost completely restricted to batch-style, command-line, C/C++ development in UNIX environments. The "Customer" (like any "real" customer, I suspect) didn't care *how* the project was completed, but he sure as hell wanted a non-command-line user interface...! Add to that the fact that he wanted us to interface with a piece of software completely foreign to most of us (Microsoft SourceSafe) -- and it was very obvious, very quick that Visual Basic or VC++ was a much better tool for accomplishing what he wanted done (in the timeframe provided).
The "client" didn't care/understand that we didn't know how to use Microsoft's APIs, or that none of us had ever even poked around with SourceSafe or VB....the assumption was that (as soon-to-be-graduates) we could figure out what the best tools were, teach ourselves those tools, and put the solution together from scratch, because that's what would be expected from us "out there."
(2) The second aspect that made this thing work was also the most controversial: Either the whole class passed or the whole class failed... So even if you were part of the "Requirements Team" and you finished your part of the project a month ago--you were still at the whim of whatever the "Development Team" churned out on the last day of class... If your part was completed correctly, you were still dependent on *all* of your classmates pulling their fair share.
The reason why this was "controversial" -- while some of us argued (and worried) throughout the quarter that an "everyone fails" verdict would be unfair, a small group of us (myself included) suspected that this result would actually never be allowed to happen... You see, for most of us, this was our *last* quarter before graduation -- most of us were already job-searching, or (like me) had already been accepted into grad school at this point.
But completion of this class (with a 'C' or higher) was required in order to graduate with a CS degree....and the class was offered only once every 2-3 quarters or so. So, at least in theory, you could do your job A#1, 100%, and still find yourself having to hang around campus for another 6 months or so--because some idiot in QA failed to sufficiently "impress" the teacher, or whatever.
Again, many of us suspected that the professor wouldn't hold tight to his "everyone fails, everyone passes" mentality if there was an ob
>After making such statements, they > have no choice but to pull out now.
I agree with this statement, but not necessarily the sentiment.
Yes, barring some strange/unlikely "compromise" with the Chinese government, Google has few viable alternatives at this point. They will have to retrench, modify (or reduce/eliminate) their service offerings *significantly* very soon. From a PR standpoint alone, they've locked themselves in to (at the very least) some *big* changes in the near future...
They're committed to *something* now because they've merely done what George Bush never will -- admit that yes, maybe/possibly somebody goofed. Maybe we made a mistake.
Willing to re-evalulate their decisions, and if necessary, admit fault -- check. Okay, well, the CEO of Google is now officially more moral/ethical than the leader of the Free World. (Big surprise there, right?) But while George may be stupid, his advisors aren't -- and there's a reason they avoid mea culpas.
George doesn't believe in Global Warming -- and for this, we call him *stupid*. That's a big jump down from what we'd be calling him ("evil bastard who is intentionally trying to kill the planet," perhaps?) if he'd ever admitted (at the very least) "well, this shit might be possible, I guess..."
This is because that in order to "admit that the potential for evil exists," you have to first be aware of said potential...and once you're aware of it, you're obliged to go "check it out," one way or the other. In science and politics, this can be done via an investigation, or a scientific study, etc. But Google isn't dealing with *facts* here; they're dealing with ethical dillemas. No "study" is going to demonstrate to the public that "No worries, we checked it out, and it turns out that it's *not* evil now!"
But I don't mean to paint Google as some poor frightened puppy that has wedged itself into a corner -- Google may be "stuck" with very few options right now, but the folks at Google are a smart lot. The CEO didn't just "offhandedly" say something by accident -- he's a smart guy, he knows what what he's doing, and he knew damn well that (by suggesting Google might be rethinking the matter) he was tipping over the first domino and setting into motion an irrevocable chain of events leading to....?
What will Google do? I have no idea... but I suspect Google knows. And I suspect they knew what their plan was before they tipped over that first domino. Maybe they're on the "outs" with the Chinese Gov't as it is, or maybe half of their staff threatened to resign, or mabye...it doesn't matter. Look for Google to do *something* and expect them to make a big event of it.
Whether its to make a point, or to make a buck, or to just whore up some media attention -- and regardless, good for them! -- they're going for something very public here, IMO, and it should be fun to watch as the drama unfolds.
>The law is also very flexible about allowing a company
>to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number
>of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends
>but there are people who determine their investments beyond
>stock earning power.
Indeed. But on a simpler level, Evil is just bad...and companies are wise to steer clear of it altogether.:)
Sans the ability to travel to the future (and/or find a reasonably accurate *and* affordable psychic) the officers, directors, et al, of a public firm are not obligated to "act in such manner as to secure the best possible outcome" -- such a demand necessitates that said officers/directors be capable of: (1) knowing or determining in advance every possible result (and side-effect) that would inevitably stem from a decision (or series of decisions); and (2) quantifying in some meaningful way all the "positive" and "negative" effects entailed by each disparate result, so that some form of "Ethical Calculus" could be performed and conclusively (objectively) tell us which of the N solutions was "in the best interest of the Shareholders."
I think it's safe to say that with N>1, above, we move into nonlinear space rather quickly.:)
Basically, it comes down to this:
1. As an officer or director of a firm, you have a fiduciary duty to represent the Shareholders' best interests -- you do this by avoiding conflicts of interest, practicing all appropriate due dilligence (eg, when researching/considering a significant decision), and then finally, acting or voting in a manner that you believe (in good faith) will best benefit the Shareholders you represent.
2. This is NOT the same thing as what some of the previous posts have said, eg, "Google execs must always act on (capture) any and all immediate/obvious potential revenue streams, blindly exploit every opportunity for profit, etc, because they have a responsibity to enhance Shareholder ROI, every second of every day, no matter what the cost."
Since the Nazi analogy has already been used (lol), I'll try to go with a more creative one: At some point, Exxon execs had to decide whether to purchase Nice Safe Expensive Ships or Cheap-Ass Ships of Questionable Quality. Hindsight is 20/20, but put yourself in the shoes of the executives who had to decide between purchasing and maintaining the NSESs and the CASQQs.
Purchasing the NSESs would cut deep into Exxon's profit margin, which was Bad For Shareholders. So it's an automatic "no," right? Perhaps, but more likely, the end result was more a function of a risk-weighted cost/benefit analysis. Ie, "What's the worst case scenario? How likely is such an outcome? And if something catastrophic did happen, how much would it cost to 'fix' (cleanup, repair the ships, PR, etc) said catastrophe?"
Every decision involves potential risks, losses, and gains -- and many of these are identified in advance, which is great. But it's the potential risks/losses you *don't* forsee that nail you -- eg, the real cost of the cleanup effort, the loss of disgusted Exxon customers who *never* came back after the incident, opening the door for BP's to later capitalize with their "green" quasi-envioronmentally "at least we're better than Exxon" marketing campaigns, etc.
Exxon saw the environment as a tool, not an ally (or something worth protecting) -- if the Valdez had never struck that Iceberg, then maybe (!) you could arguablly claim that the decision to increase shareholder wealth (vs "waste it" on environmental protections that nobody would ever see or appreciate, and would probably never contribute to the bottom line, as far as they knew) was totally right...
In fact, this probably *is* the correct course of action... if we're to believe the myopic view of "Company as Monster" where "COMPANY MUST GROW NOW! Smas
Yes. We'll be at USENIX running a booth on the 4th floor of the Copley Place Marriott until about 2-3pm (EST) this afternoon.....at which point a few of us have to jet back to our "real" lives.;)
However, Duane Groth (CAcert President) and Wren Hunt (CAcert Developer/Volunteer) will both be in Boston for quite a bit longer--not to mention, Duane is planning a "road trip" to NYC in a day or two to register folks there. (They're meeting in an Apple SOHO store--I forget the address, but you can email him at {support |at| cacert |d0t| org}.
After that, there's always the "Trusted Third Party" route, which is explained on our website. (Basically, a Bank Manager, Notary Public, or other government-trusted authority can help you become a fully trusted member of the community.)
Has anyone set up an organized boycott of Metallica yet? If so, please post the URL... What I mean is this: remember when the Exxon Valdez struck that iceburg and spewed oil all over the place, killing wildlife and contaminating miles and miles of ocean? When that happened, people from all over the country cut their Exxon credit cards in half, placed them in a ziplock bag filled with motor oil, and mailed it to Exxon with a note indicating their boycott of corporations who screw with the environment. It seems that the same thing would work well here. Sure, Metallica sucks pretty bad now, but most of us have a copy of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning, etc. So why not start mailing them back? Why not start up an organized campaign to get everyone to mail back Metallica CDs en masse, with a letter saying that we won't buy anything (CDs, concert tix, etc.) from them until the lawsuit is dropped... Hey, they'll probably ignore us, but Exxon ignored the people who sent their cards back, too. Yet it still made the news--and it made an impact on other corporations. The worst thing we can do right now is just sit around while a cool program/company like Napster gets railed. Even if we're just one candle in the darkness, at least we can make some noise and try to draw attention to the issues at work here. Again, if anyone knows of an effort to do something like this, please post the URL.
Is it just me, or is www.peacefire.org down? (Could just be my crappy connection.) The reason I ask is because several of the companies Peacefire has pissed off have been trying to get the Peacefire domain taken down by their ISP... Or maybe they're just getting/.ed right now...:)
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds almost exactly like our senior-level "software engineering" course (CS445, I think?) at UAB (http://www.uab.edu/).
A "guest lecturer" (usually the same guy -- a UAB grad and founder of a local medium-sized consulting firm) was in charge of the class, and after a brief overview of what the class would entail, we were instructed to group ourselves into teams in charge of Requirements-gathering, Implementation/Interface design, QA, Documentation, etc., etc. Each 2-3 weeks, we'd focus on "the next step" of the methodology/lifecycle, while the students responsible for that piece of the puzzle would work together and (eventually) produce whatever deliverable was appropriate...
I don't recall how or why, but somehow I ended up as the "Project Lead" -- so I, and my unwitting teammates, found ourselves stressed for the entire quarter, as we were ultimately responsible for taking whatever our classmates "spat out" and presenting it to the Prof (the "Client" for sake of the project). The rest of the "teams" simply did whatever was required of them (eg, preparing a requirements document, programming a prototype, etc) and then took a few weeks off, after the fire was no longer under their respective asses. :)
The key to all of this -- well, *keys*, because I think there were probably two major reasons why this class stuck with me through the years -- were:
(1) The "outsider" as professor/client/judge was a useful model to prepare us for the real world... Here we were, a class of almost-graduates, and yet our respective development backgrounds were almost completely restricted to batch-style, command-line, C/C++ development in UNIX environments. The "Customer" (like any "real" customer, I suspect) didn't care *how* the project was completed, but he sure as hell wanted a non-command-line user interface...! Add to that the fact that he wanted us to interface with a piece of software completely foreign to most of us (Microsoft SourceSafe) -- and it was very obvious, very quick that Visual Basic or VC++ was a much better tool for accomplishing what he wanted done (in the timeframe provided).
The "client" didn't care/understand that we didn't know how to use Microsoft's APIs, or that none of us had ever even poked around with SourceSafe or VB....the assumption was that (as soon-to-be-graduates) we could figure out what the best tools were, teach ourselves those tools, and put the solution together from scratch, because that's what would be expected from us "out there."
(2) The second aspect that made this thing work was also the most controversial: Either the whole class passed or the whole class failed... So even if you were part of the "Requirements Team" and you finished your part of the project a month ago--you were still at the whim of whatever the "Development Team" churned out on the last day of class... If your part was completed correctly, you were still dependent on *all* of your classmates pulling their fair share.
The reason why this was "controversial" -- while some of us argued (and worried) throughout the quarter that an "everyone fails" verdict would be unfair, a small group of us (myself included) suspected that this result would actually never be allowed to happen... You see, for most of us, this was our *last* quarter before graduation -- most of us were already job-searching, or (like me) had already been accepted into grad school at this point.
But completion of this class (with a 'C' or higher) was required in order to graduate with a CS degree....and the class was offered only once every 2-3 quarters or so. So, at least in theory, you could do your job A#1, 100%, and still find yourself having to hang around campus for another 6 months or so--because some idiot in QA failed to sufficiently "impress" the teacher, or whatever.
Again, many of us suspected that the professor wouldn't hold tight to his "everyone fails, everyone passes" mentality if there was an ob
>After making such statements, they
... but I suspect Google knows. And I suspect they knew what their plan was before they tipped over that first domino. Maybe they're on the "outs" with the Chinese Gov't as it is, or maybe half of their staff threatened to resign, or mabye...it doesn't matter. Look for Google to do *something* and expect them to make a big event of it.
> have no choice but to pull out now.
I agree with this statement, but not necessarily the sentiment.
Yes, barring some strange/unlikely "compromise" with the Chinese government, Google has few viable alternatives at this point. They will have to retrench, modify (or reduce/eliminate) their service offerings *significantly* very soon. From a PR standpoint alone, they've locked themselves in to (at the very least) some *big* changes in the near future...
They're committed to *something* now because they've merely done what George Bush never will -- admit that yes, maybe/possibly somebody goofed. Maybe we made a mistake.
Willing to re-evalulate their decisions, and if necessary, admit fault -- check. Okay, well, the CEO of Google is now officially more moral/ethical than the leader of the Free World. (Big surprise there, right?) But while George may be stupid, his advisors aren't -- and there's a reason they avoid mea culpas.
George doesn't believe in Global Warming -- and for this, we call him *stupid*. That's a big jump down from what we'd be calling him ("evil bastard who is intentionally trying to kill the planet," perhaps?) if he'd ever admitted (at the very least) "well, this shit might be possible, I guess..."
This is because that in order to "admit that the potential for evil exists," you have to first be aware of said potential...and once you're aware of it, you're obliged to go "check it out," one way or the other. In science and politics, this can be done via an investigation, or a scientific study, etc. But Google isn't dealing with *facts* here; they're dealing with ethical dillemas. No "study" is going to demonstrate to the public that "No worries, we checked it out, and it turns out that it's *not* evil now!"
But I don't mean to paint Google as some poor frightened puppy that has wedged itself into a corner -- Google may be "stuck" with very few options right now, but the folks at Google are a smart lot. The CEO didn't just "offhandedly" say something by accident -- he's a smart guy, he knows what what he's doing, and he knew damn well that (by suggesting Google might be rethinking the matter) he was tipping over the first domino and setting into motion an irrevocable chain of events leading to....?
What will Google do? I have no idea
Whether its to make a point, or to make a buck, or to just whore up some media attention -- and regardless, good for them! -- they're going for something very public here, IMO, and it should be fun to watch as the drama unfolds.
>The law is also very flexible about allowing a company
:)
:)
...
... if we're to believe the myopic view of "Company as Monster" where "COMPANY MUST GROW NOW! Smas
>to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number
>of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends
>but there are people who determine their investments beyond
>stock earning power.
Indeed. But on a simpler level, Evil is just bad...and companies are wise to steer clear of it altogether.
Sans the ability to travel to the future (and/or find a reasonably accurate *and* affordable psychic) the officers, directors, et al, of a public firm are not obligated to "act in such manner as to secure the best possible outcome" -- such a demand necessitates that said officers/directors be capable of: (1) knowing or determining in advance every possible result (and side-effect) that would inevitably stem from a decision (or series of decisions); and (2) quantifying in some meaningful way all the "positive" and "negative" effects entailed by each disparate result, so that some form of "Ethical Calculus" could be performed and conclusively (objectively) tell us which of the N solutions was "in the best interest of the Shareholders."
I think it's safe to say that with N>1, above, we move into nonlinear space rather quickly.
Basically, it comes down to this:
1. As an officer or director of a firm, you have a fiduciary duty to represent the Shareholders' best interests -- you do this by avoiding conflicts of interest, practicing all appropriate due dilligence (eg, when researching/considering a significant decision), and then finally, acting or voting in a manner that you believe (in good faith) will best benefit the Shareholders you represent.
2. This is NOT the same thing as what some of the previous posts have said, eg, "Google execs must always act on (capture) any and all immediate/obvious potential revenue streams, blindly exploit every opportunity for profit, etc, because they have a responsibity to enhance Shareholder ROI, every second of every day, no matter what the cost."
Since the Nazi analogy has already been used (lol), I'll try to go with a more creative one: At some point, Exxon execs had to decide whether to purchase Nice Safe Expensive Ships or Cheap-Ass Ships of Questionable Quality. Hindsight is 20/20, but put yourself in the shoes of the executives who had to decide between purchasing and maintaining the NSESs and the CASQQs.
Purchasing the NSESs would cut deep into Exxon's profit margin, which was Bad For Shareholders. So it's an automatic "no," right? Perhaps, but more likely, the end result was more a function of a risk-weighted cost/benefit analysis. Ie, "What's the worst case scenario? How likely is such an outcome? And if something catastrophic did happen, how much would it cost to 'fix' (cleanup, repair the ships, PR, etc) said catastrophe?"
Every decision involves potential risks, losses, and gains -- and many of these are identified in advance, which is great. But it's the potential risks/losses you *don't* forsee that nail you -- eg, the real cost of the cleanup effort, the loss of disgusted Exxon customers who *never* came back after the incident, opening the door for BP's to later capitalize with their "green" quasi-envioronmentally "at least we're better than Exxon" marketing campaigns, etc.
Exxon saw the environment as a tool, not an ally (or something worth protecting) -- if the Valdez had never struck that Iceberg, then maybe (!) you could arguablly claim that the decision to increase shareholder wealth (vs "waste it" on environmental protections that nobody would ever see or appreciate, and would probably never contribute to the bottom line, as far as they knew) was totally right
In fact, this probably *is* the correct course of action
Yes. We'll be at USENIX running a booth on the 4th floor of the Copley Place Marriott until about 2-3pm (EST) this afternoon. ....at which point a few of us have to jet back to our "real" lives. ;)
However, Duane Groth (CAcert President) and Wren Hunt (CAcert Developer/Volunteer) will both be in Boston for quite a bit longer--not to mention, Duane is planning a "road trip" to NYC in a day or two to register folks there. (They're meeting in an Apple SOHO store--I forget the address, but you can email him at {support |at| cacert |d0t| org}.
After that, there's always the "Trusted Third Party" route, which is explained on our website. (Basically, a Bank Manager, Notary Public, or other government-trusted authority can help you become a fully trusted member of the community.)
Hope that helps!
Adam Butler
CAcert Public Relations
Has anyone set up an organized boycott of Metallica yet? If so, please post the URL... What I mean is this: remember when the Exxon Valdez struck that iceburg and spewed oil all over the place, killing wildlife and contaminating miles and miles of ocean? When that happened, people from all over the country cut their Exxon credit cards in half, placed them in a ziplock bag filled with motor oil, and mailed it to Exxon with a note indicating their boycott of corporations who screw with the environment. It seems that the same thing would work well here. Sure, Metallica sucks pretty bad now, but most of us have a copy of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning, etc. So why not start mailing them back? Why not start up an organized campaign to get everyone to mail back Metallica CDs en masse, with a letter saying that we won't buy anything (CDs, concert tix, etc.) from them until the lawsuit is dropped... Hey, they'll probably ignore us, but Exxon ignored the people who sent their cards back, too. Yet it still made the news--and it made an impact on other corporations. The worst thing we can do right now is just sit around while a cool program/company like Napster gets railed. Even if we're just one candle in the darkness, at least we can make some noise and try to draw attention to the issues at work here. Again, if anyone knows of an effort to do something like this, please post the URL.
Is it just me, or is www.peacefire.org down? (Could just be my crappy connection.) The reason I ask is because several of the companies Peacefire has pissed off have been trying to get the Peacefire domain taken down by their ISP... Or maybe they're just getting /.ed right now... :)