[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted
In article <427bec$2t7@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
Lex Spoon <sspoon@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>wendy wrote:
>
>: Especially if you are doing work that looks, sounds and smells exactly like
>: an illegal activity, where the ONLY difference is the approval and
>: permission of the owner, it makes sense to get everything signed off in
>: advance and keep the communication lines open. The best authorizations I
>: have seen in this area were phrased like this:
>
>This would be terrible, though! If you hired an architect to design a
>building for you, would you tell them what tools they can use? If
> ...
>Also, you can't ask your boss before you do every single thing. "may
She didn't say that. Re-read her first three lines (for your
convenience, here they are again):
>: Especially if you are doing work that looks, sounds and smells exactly like
>: an illegal activity, where the ONLY difference is the approval and
>: permission of the owner...
Designing a building isn't likely to look like an illegal activity.
(Not to mention, if you have any sense you will have placed certain
limits on the architect - e.g. make sure we can afford it, make sure
that the design meets building codes, ...)
And, most things you do for your boss don't (or shouldn't) look like
illegal activities - unless you've got a seriously weird job. In any
case, whenever you're working for anyone on anything, there are almost
certainly limits on what they will accept as 'proper behavior' from
you, and it is a *very* good idea to know what they are, and what will
happen if you go beyond them. (And, if you don't like them, you need
a new job.)
--
http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccpes/
Follow-Ups:
References: