I obviously didn't bring to the demonstration that I had volunteered the time, it suited my point to make it seem like it was something easy I could do as an aside... Problem is, they don't care about $ either, they care about what makes them look good, what makes their boss look good, what the sales guys are bugging them about, and it's features and visual polish and never quality or performance.
I had to break it down to one of them "Listen, we've seen that the site being faster gets us X% more conversions, if the site was down, or if the site was ugly X% of the time and cost us those conversions, you'd be breathing down my neck to fix it, why is this any different...?" reply after a few seconds of thought "You're right, but you'll never convince Leadership"
> I've done clandestine work over weekends to speed up an application
> I obviously didn't bring to the demonstration that I had volunteered the time, it suited my point to make it seem like it was something easy I could do as an aside
I understand the impulse, but in long term this leads to inflated estimates from management - and tech side has only themselves to blame. When we pretend things take shorter then they really do, dont be surprised when they learn to expect our lie to become truth.
There is an old Google paper where they talk about discovering that users returned more often if the search results list was 10 instead of 20, since the shorter list took marginally less time to load/render for the user. If your co-workers don't believe you then I am sure they would at least love the Google finding that minor performance improvements have a positive impact. They would then support improving performance in the app and brag about how much like Google they are.
Google is showing one series of ads per page. The study showed that having more legitimate results per page decreased their revenues. Of course, it gives less room for ads and less page views.
The work you did probably is great and do I think its above your average developer. Somewhere in the the top 10%. Though how you conducted yourself in the face of management was down right petty/folly.
Yes you did the best job in the world. You improved the performance of the serves by % and it did make management of those server's easier. Though you need to think about what you've done in the eyes of management.
Firstly you've modified the server's without permission. You've run tests out-side of work hours that could of impacted the business bottom line. For all I know (its up for debate) but your senior managers had more pressing issues on the table, and having a young code money running around outside office hours is the LAST thing they want to hear.
`It's not a simple as you may think it is.`
Some of the things that come to mind, and honestly I would of pulled you into a office to explain yourself if you're on my team.
1) Did you document all the changes you've made to the server
2) Did you back-up or store any sensitive information off-site during out of office hours
3) Did you modify critical system files that could cause another dependent system to fail
4) What ETA/Service level agreements if any did you break when bringing down the server for maintenance?
5) Did we lose any Security Certification with you modifying the server or changing any of the certificates on the server?
We're software developer, and yes when we see problem's we want to fix it to our best of our ability. Though when you're in a Business there are many thing you may not be aware of. In this situation I would honestly say you're lucky to keep your job! I hope you take it into consideration next time you want to go out-side of your duties.
I don't want to come down harsh on you, but there are times when you see a bad situation and there is nothing you can do about it. You notify the people who're higher than you of the situation and the dangers. It's then up to them to make the decision. After they've made the decision that is it. If the server blows up during the weekend, and they want you to come in and fix it (even when its there fuckup) you just take your hourly rate and x10. So if your hourly rate is $50hr and the server blows up, then your new rate is going to be $500 per hour to come in during the weekend to fix the mess.
Many of the points you've raised are moot outside of large corporate environments and projects.
It is likely that the commenter has root access to all of the things you mention and touches them on a daily basis. It is likely that they are not inundated with all of the heavy process you're bringing up. It is likely that all of the security concerns you raise are not even part of their current business. Working outside of set business hours is likely not a concern; overtime is likely uncompensated anyway and there probably aren't considerable office security protocols (they probably have keys and an access code for the whole office).
The points you've raised do not apply to most small development teams.
It was a simple performance bug (think N+1 query type) that was trivial to implement and trivial to be confident about its behavior vs the pathological implementation, and I used the normal channels for shipping it, it passed QA.
The only "clandestine" part is that I added the split test, and did some work outside of the set of features that was scheduled.
We had no policies around SLA, developing off-site, security or restricting sensitive information (think potential FERPA/HIPPA violation) which are yet other "non-features" that I tried to get them to adopt.
I implemented this entirely above-board, with more precautions and consideration than were taken by other developers on that team for the day-to-day.
I had to break it down to one of them "Listen, we've seen that the site being faster gets us X% more conversions, if the site was down, or if the site was ugly X% of the time and cost us those conversions, you'd be breathing down my neck to fix it, why is this any different...?" reply after a few seconds of thought "You're right, but you'll never convince Leadership"