statquontrarian

I like the About page explaining the motivation and how it's different. If you want to get ahead of the curve, filters for 4 and 3 day work weeks would be very cool.

I think that's a good strategy.

It was mostly accidental: first, I took a 3 month leave of absence to explore a midlife crisis. I came back announcing I'd like to go half-time to do a masters degree which my company was okay with, and when that was over, I just never went back to full time and my company was okay with it.

I guess and hope that simply directly asking for this is another strategy (and what I plan to do if I ever lose this job); otherwise, performing the above sort of misdirection, consciously, might also help justify the exception for management and peers.

I also suspect ruthless prioritization is my main driver of increased productivity.

Probably, yes, but I suspect that it's so hard to find this arrangement (20 hours per week, full benefits, and still very good pay despite it being 50% of total), that I'm just very content with the arrangement.

I'm working 1/2 the time (7 hours Monday & Tuesday, and 6 hours Wednesday), and, yes, it even surprised me that my total productivity is about the same as when I worked 40 hours per week. It's even possible that my total productivity is actually greater than before but we don't have sufficiently precise metrics off of which to judge that.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was boasting or that I bring this up with him or my management, but just that there's a somewhat objective relative measurement that shows that it's possible to keep up high output for some jobs. I was surprised that my _total_ output stayed so high after transitioning from 40 to 20 hours.

No backlash or retaliation so far after more than 2 years.

I've been doing a 20-hour 3 day work week (50% of total pay) for a few years now and I love it. I'm outperforming a full-time colleague in total output.

Edited to add that the 3 day work week totals 20 hours.

What is the misconception? That paged you linked to says that map tiles are free for use with a few reasonable restrictions:

    Clearly display license attribution, normally in the bottom-right corner of the map.
    Do not actively or passively encourage copyright infringement.
    Recommended: Do not hardcode any URL to tile.openstreetmap.org as doing so will limit your ability to react if the service is disrupted or blocked. In particular, switching should be possible without requiring a software update.
    Recommended: add a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/fixthemap to allow your users to report and fix problems in our data.
    Recommended: a contact email on your web page or app store page. If we cannot find contact information we will be unable to do anything except block if an issue arises.

Of course, there is no Service Level Agreement:

    Although our map tiles are generally very reliable, their availability to others is on a best effort basis and we offer no SLA or guarantees.

But that seems quite reasonable for donated resources.

"made no sense" from a narrow, CVE announcement perspective, but Maxim disagrees from another perspective:

    > [F5] decided to interfere with security policy nginx
    > uses for years, ignoring both the policy and developers’ position.
    >
    > That’s quite understandable: they own the project, and can do
    > anything with it, including doing marketing-motivated actions,
    > ignoring developers position and community.  Still, this
    > contradicts our agreement.  And, more importantly, I no longer able
    > to control which changes are made in nginx within F5, and no longer
    > see nginx as a free and open source project developed and
    > maintained for the public good.

I'm not sure what "contradicts our agreement" means but the simple interpretation is that he feels that F5 have become too dictatorial to the open source project.

The whole drama seems very short-sighted from F5's perspective. Maxim was working for you for free for years and you couldn't find some middle ground? I imagine there could have been some page on the free nginx project that listed CVEs that are in the enterprise product but that are not considered CVEs for the open source project given its stated policy of not creating CVEs for experimental features, or something like that.

To nuke the main developer, cause this rift in the community, and create a fork seems like a great microcosm of the general tendency of security leads to wield uncompromising power. I get it. Security is important. But security isn't everything and these little fiefdoms that security leads build up are bureaucratic and annoying.

I hope you understand that these uncompromising policies actually reduce security in the end because 10X developers like Maxim will start to tend to avoid the security team and, in the worst case, hide stuff from their security team. I've seen this play out over and over in large corporations. In that sense, the F5 security team is no different.

But there should be a collaborative, two-way process between security and development. I'm sure security leads will say that they have that, but that's not what I find. Ultimately, if there's an escalation, executives will side with the security lead, so it is a de facto dictatorship even if security leads will tend to avoid the nuclear option. But when you take the nuclear option, as you did in this case, don't be surprised by the consequences.