It's not related to the article content, but I can't help but notice the "diversity" in authorship grades: a senior staff, a (regular) senior, and a principal. I suppose grades are a key mechanism by which corporates keep their hamster wheels running.
I'm thankful that, at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.
> at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.
It's not exactly conducive to knowing that if you're a new starter though, is it. I imagine it takes quite a while to get to know, especially outside of your immediate remit.
Positions are better than titles for that. Compare "Principal Engineer" with no other info to "Software Engineer, Lead at Mobile UX".
You know if they are your boss, not how big of a boss they are. That's way more important unless your organization is a chaotic mess where managers feel like they can order around people from a different team. And then you got bigger problems.
> I'm thankful that, at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO
All engineers are equal, however some engineers are more equal than others?
Ah, the classic tyranny of structurelessness.
Title should indicate work and responsibility, right?
CTOs work is totally different from SE, so why s/he is SE?
Lets make your janitor can be SE too