Tales from the Office Space: Complain about your coworkers

[mouse]

QA finally hired a new girl who moved into the desk next to mine yesterday. Her boss pops over and asks her how everything is going, if she's getting acquainted, and if it's "everything she thought it would be".

New girl says "well actually, not really".

Boss asks what she means.

"Well so far, a lot of people are saying I may have made a mistake by coming here (this company)"

I almost lol'd for real.

Then I cried because I'm probably stuck here.

It's not even 6:00 am and this poor girl is having to hear a story about how some dude threatened to kidnap and murder the woman training her and that the guy still works here...

[DCR]

QA finally hired a new girl who moved into the desk next to mine yesterday. Her boss pops over and asks her how everything is going, if she's getting acquainted, and if it's "everything she thought it would be".

New girl says "well actually, not really".

Boss asks what she means.

"Well so far, a lot of people are saying I may have made a mistake by coming here (this company)"

I almost lol'd for real.

Then I cried because I'm probably stuck here.

It's not even 6:00 am and this poor girl is having to hear a story about how some dude threatened to kidnap and murder the woman training her and that the guy still works here...

Stop it! Lolllll

[mouse]

QA finally hired a new girl who moved into the desk next to mine yesterday. Her boss pops over and asks her how everything is going, if she's getting acquainted, and if it's "everything she thought it would be".

New girl says "well actually, not really".

Boss asks what she means.

"Well so far, a lot of people are saying I may have made a mistake by coming here (this company)"

I almost lol'd for real.

Then I cried because I'm probably stuck here.

It's not even 6:00 am and this poor girl is having to hear a story about how some dude threatened to kidnap and murder the woman training her and that the guy still works here...

Stop it! Lolllll

For the life of me I have no idea what prompted this story...

But out of nowhere this woman is telling her about the big stinky guy (hey cmon I'm right here) who she accidentally bumped into or something one day and he made a comment to her about wrapping her in duct tape and putting her in his trunk...

Absolutely wild...

[dw]

Is that not a common term of endearment anymore?

You know like "You look so adorable I could just wrap you up in duct tape and hide you in my trunk!"

[mouse]

Is that not a common term of endearment anymore?

You know like "You look so adorable I could just wrap you up in duct tape and hide you in my trunk!"

*blushes*

[5hout]

We give outside counsel estimated date of completion, sometime middle of 2024 on project. They say "we'd like it done in 6 weeks". We tell them "Ok, if we start on Thursday with 100 more people we can do that". They wait 2 weeks and approve 3 (three (the number between 2 (two) and 4 (four)) extra people. We remind them that math exists, and now we need closer to 130 more people b/c of the 2 week delay. They wait a week and approve 100 people.

They are now confused why the estimated completion date is not 6 weeks from their original "we'd like to wrap it up in 6 weeks" email. These are partners at a law firm with >250 partners and Profits Per Partner in excess of 1m.

It's like they are so rich with such fancy degrees they forget that reality still exists and people making Rich Men North of Richmond Bullshit pay don't give a fuck about their deadlines.

EDIT: I should add this is "more in amusement than anger/sorrow" b/c I couldn't care less if I tried. I'm working the same 40-45 hours regardless. Actually, I get more money per hour now b/c larger project comes with a bump and I still told company to take a long hike off a short pier on weekend work. Just pure confusion at the inability to solve for X.

[DCR]

They are now confused why the estimated completion date is not 6 weeks from their original "we'd like to wrap it up in 6 weeks" email. These are partners at a law firm with >250 partners and Profits Per Partner in excess of 1m.

It is impossible to exaggerate just how overrated are these firms and their work product.

[DoctorWho]

They are now confused why the estimated completion date is not 6 weeks from their original "we'd like to wrap it up in 6 weeks" email. These are partners at a law firm with >250 partners and Profits Per Partner in excess of 1m.

It is impossible to exaggerate just how overrated are these firms and their work product.

100%.

But 5hout, are in the estimates coming from in-house or is it a second outside counsel providing work to the first outside counsel?

[5hout]

They are now confused why the estimated completion date is not 6 weeks from their original "we'd like to wrap it up in 6 weeks" email. These are partners at a law firm with >250 partners and Profits Per Partner in excess of 1m.

It is impossible to exaggerate just how overrated are these firms and their work product.

100%.

But 5hout, are in the estimates coming from in-house or is it a second outside counsel providing work to the first outside counsel?

Structure is:

I work for a document review firm (now), so there's no intermediary between us/our estimates and the decision makers. It's actually evolved to a funnier place. Last week they added a big pile of docs (while approving 0 additional reviewers), and were strangely confused when this moved back the estimated date of completion. They got on a call with a v v high up at my company (I was on strictly to listen) and he tried to explain that when you add docs, it takes longer b/c we have to review them. They asked us to "try" and finish on the original deadline and we'll "touch base" in a week on how it is going. Then they added they actually needed us done 4 days early so they have time to QC our work. 2 problems here.

0. We attempted to anticipate this internally b/c this confusion about "when do docs get shipped to other side" vs "review team hands off" happens every project, even when we explain the difference and nail down exactly what date each action is happening on.
1. They are ~ 4 weeks behind on us on release. Meaning they are QC'ing stuff we gave to them 4 weeks ago. Somehow in their brain they think they are going to complete QC something like 1000x as fast as they have been. Person on call asked if they were planning on adding more QC people on their side (i.e. new accounts created) or cutting searches. They replied no new people and no cutting of searches.
2. In re issue 0: They 100% flipflopped their answer on this, so now with an extra boat load of documents we have 4 less days.

Archery Season opens on Sunday, so I'm in full on prep for hunting mode. Some internal people tried to pretend this was an all-hands-on-deck situation. Now, I realize this is a service position, but personally I give 0 fucks about working extra to help people that do this stuff. If it's our screw up? I'll work some weekends. Not so much here.

Unrelated, but had to slap someone with the 2x4 of common sense. RFP broadly requires all documents and communications with[3rd party to be R. Person argues that press releases and publications* of 3rd part] aren't necessarily R b/c we don't know if it's a document with 3rd party. Apparently interpreting "with" to mean "only direct emails" and excluding all relayed forms of communications/document transmission. 2 problems here. First off, outside counsel has 3 times explicitly endorsed "relayed communications/docs are R to this RFP". Second off, we can see what outside counsel is doing with these docs on their own QC and they are R. Person under me on this project wanted to argue and just blatantly refused (in chat) to follow these instructions, and said he was going to "instruct the team these are NR". It was such a weird hill to die on/insubordination (which I hate to use, but like, that's what it is). Poor guy got whacked by me and then manager and then me again. I don't understand people. Even if you think I'm wrong (which I'm not), why force the issue? I was perfectly happy to let him have a minor win and nuance the instructions to be correct, but leave him some wiggle room until he said he would instruct the team after me if I did so.

TBF, there is a history here where him and another person were left unsupervised for a while and went feral. It's awkward when manager above all of us drops me into the chat/project politely indicating things aren't working out and I'll be making them work out, but like, roll with it man.

*note: we're reviewing docs from drives of company, so the press release didn''t just travel there through the ether and we don't have 3rd party's drives to pull from.

Just so weird

[DoctorWho]

They are now confused why the estimated completion date is not 6 weeks from their original "we'd like to wrap it up in 6 weeks" email. These are partners at a law firm with >250 partners and Profits Per Partner in excess of 1m.

It is impossible to exaggerate just how overrated are these firms and their work product.

100%.

But 5hout, are in the estimates coming from in-house or is it a second outside counsel providing work to the first outside counsel?

Structure is:

I work for a document review firm (now), so there's no intermediary between us/our estimates and the decision makers. It's actually evolved to a funnier place. Last week they added a big pile of docs (while approving 0 additional reviewers), and were strangely confused when this moved back the estimated date of completion. They got on a call with a v v high up at my company (I was on strictly to listen) and he tried to explain that when you add docs, it takes longer b/c we have to review them. They asked us to "try" and finish on the original deadline and we'll "touch base" in a week on how it is going. Then they added they actually needed us done 4 days early so they have time to QC our work. 2 problems here.

0. We attempted to anticipate this internally b/c this confusion about "when do docs get shipped to other side" vs "review team hands off" happens every project, even when we explain the difference and nail down exactly what date each action is happening on.
1. They are ~ 4 weeks behind on us on release. Meaning they are QC'ing stuff we gave to them 4 weeks ago. Somehow in their brain they think they are going to complete QC something like 1000x as fast as they have been. Person on call asked if they were planning on adding more QC people on their side (i.e. new accounts created) or cutting searches. They replied no new people and no cutting of searches.
2. In re issue 0: They 100% flipflopped their answer on this, so now with an extra boat load of documents we have 4 less days.

Archery Season opens on Sunday, so I'm in full on prep for hunting mode. Some internal people tried to pretend this was an all-hands-on-deck situation. Now, I realize this is a service position, but personally I give 0 fucks about working extra to help people that do this stuff. If it's our screw up? I'll work some weekends. Not so much here.

Unrelated, but had to slap someone with the 2x4 of common sense. RFP broadly requires all documents and communications with[3rd party to be R. Person argues that press releases and publications* of 3rd part] aren't necessarily R b/c we don't know if it's a document with 3rd party. Apparently interpreting "with" to mean "only direct emails" and excluding all relayed forms of communications/document transmission. 2 problems here. First off, outside counsel has 3 times explicitly endorsed "relayed communications/docs are R to this RFP". Second off, we can see what outside counsel is doing with these docs on their own QC and they are R. Person under me on this project wanted to argue and just blatantly refused (in chat) to follow these instructions, and said he was going to "instruct the team these are NR". It was such a weird hill to die on/insubordination (which I hate to use, but like, that's what it is). Poor guy got whacked by me and then manager and then me again. I don't understand people. Even if you think I'm wrong (which I'm not), why force the issue? I was perfectly happy to let him have a minor win and nuance the instructions to be correct, but leave him some wiggle room until he said he would instruct the team after me if I did so.

TBF, there is a history here where him and another person were left unsupervised for a while and went feral. It's awkward when manager above all of us drops me into the chat/project politely indicating things aren't working out and I'll be making them work out, but like, roll with it man.

*note: we're reviewing docs from drives of company, so the press release didn''t just travel there through the ether and we don't have 3rd party's drives to pull from.

Just so weird

That whole world was invented after my brief litigation experience -- where way-overpaid associates reviewed documents.

I've heard the history that Microsoft in the 90s (a nearly perfect defendant for charging with patent infringement) got tired of the review model and either set up or helped set up a group dedicated to only document review. How much of that history is true?

PS. Does R = relevant? If so, how does that work in practice for, say, a 50 page document that might have one paragraph of relevent info? Do human eyes still scan through the doc?

[aurelius]

Last week they added a big pile of docs (while approving 0 additional reviewers), and were strangely confused when this moved back the estimated date of completion.

I work as an engineer in both the LD and PI industries. I think this is how people that don't do the work think about other people's work. Like its not real work. All the time client, or another technical group, will make changes to plans causing rework on our end. We will generate a revised schedule for the additional work and...EVERY...FUCKING...TIME..."What? Why can't we hit the deadline? Can't you guys just work harder?"

You are 100% correct on not working extra hours/weekends. Once you do that they learn you will do that and their poor planning becomes status quo. Scope, Schedule, Budget controls everything. Any one of those change they all change.

[5hout]

That whole world was invented after my brief litigation experience -- where way-overpaid associates reviewed documents.

I've heard the history that Microsoft in the 90s (a nearly perfect defendant for charging with patent infringement) got tired of the review model and either set up or helped set up a group dedicated to only document review. How much of that history is true?

PS. Does R = relevant? If so, how does that work in practice for, say, a 50 page document that might have one paragraph of relevent info? Do human eyes still scan through the doc?

R: Relevant/Responsive/Related (depending on which attorney drafts the RFP/where they are from/moon phase).

Brief History of eDoc Review:
Microsoft: I've not heard the particular story, but it makes some sense (I know google, for example, has (or had) it's own contract doc review staff to prevent outside counsel over-billing). My understanding is that tech people were pushing this as the next big thing from the 90s on. But it took till the mid 00s before the court rules (and the total domination of email as the way of doing business) finally came around to ediscovery being essential in civil litigation (FRCP explicitly endorsed computer chat and emails as discoverable documents in 06). However, it was the '08 crash (per what I've read) that really sealed the deal. No one was paying BigLaw rates for people to look at 500-1k emails a day, and it forced even established firms to seek out lower cost contract labor for the 1st line review.

Another factor that was huge was growth of project size. I've heard from old timers that a big project was 50k documents, with a huge project at 200k. Once email/chat exploded it wasn't uncommon for search terms to turn up 1m+ documents to be reviewed for relevance. That's just not possible for a law firm to handle with any # of "real" attorneys.

Plus the courts are, as is their wont, rightfully extremely distrustful of using machine learning/algos for doc review (spoiler alert: they're shit), so you've got email/chat/hard drive growth (08 was what? 100gb? less on normal people computers, now multi TB computers are common) meaning even more documents/copies of docs/old versions never deleted, chat logs for a decade, spam emails, but you can't really use computers to cull all this out b/c the courts assume you're scamming them.

So a perfect storm of more docs, cost conscious clients and even if the client is willing to pay, simply not enough attorneys to do it anyway. Consider project that takes 120 reviewers a month to do, that'd be 10% of Quinn Emmanuel or a similar sized firm working on 1 project. Just can't do it.

Process/answer to: "If so, how does that work in practice for, say, a 50 page document that might have one paragraph of relevent info? Do human eyes still scan through the doc?"

So right now the "standard" model is something like this. You've got a universe of docs you've culled out of all available data via fighting with the other side on search terms. You either linearly review the documents 1 by 1, or use some kind of assisted review. Either way you set a bunch of highlights up on the documents to make it easier to find key info.

In the linear review model once there is a single responsive search term hit in the document an attorney will review the entire document for Relevance, Priv (and sometimes other factors like confidentiality, PII, hotness) PLUS any attached documents (so emails + attachments, powerpoints + linked files and so on). ALLEGEDLY the attorney doesn't rely on the highlighting and skims all 50 pages of the document for privileged content/responsive content/hot content (such as dick pic slipped into the middle of a slideshow in a sexual harassment case).

Now, if the document is actually R (and not priv), what happens next is a matter of whatever you've fought out with the other side. 99% of the time this means the entire document + attached documents are produced. Sometimes you can get the most sensitive documents classified as Attorney's Eyes Only (meaning opposing counsel cannot show them to the client). On very rare occasions you can redact key non-responsive information (I'd say this happens on 1 case every 18 months, but sometimes stuff is that sensitive and not related to the case that the court allows it).

This is why the fight over search terms and exact wording of RFPs is important, b/c it's hugely powerful in determining how much extraneous info (i.e. ammunition) you're handing over to the other side b/c there is one R paragraph buried in a massive email chain and now the entire email chain + all attachments are going over the wall.

In a computer assisted model (TAR/CAL are common types) you basically review an initial set of documents, this is used to train the algo, the algo rank orders all documents, you review them in order (which continuously re-trains the model). Eventually the model spits out an estimate of the likelihood of the remaining documents having R content that is low enough the parties agree it's ok to not review them. You run a test sample on the remaining documents, then you're done (with a bunch of other quibbles b/c the process is actually very complicated and doesn't work for anything other than text (yet) and also is shit).

In my experience it is extremely, extremely rare, for a document to go out the door without human eyes (allegedly) looking at the entire thing, plus it being feed through at least one quality control workflow. Sometimes it happens (mass coding where counsel believes there can't be priv), but you never know when there's going to be a handwritten note on a scanned document that says "Legal issue here per in-house counsel, must stop program" or something like this, so even if it's just an "everything we don't find priv on is going out the door" priv only review. However, my experience has sampling bias, b/c I'm only brought in once the decision to manually review at least some docs is made, it's possible there are other reviews I'm involved with/don't ever see that push shit out the door without someone allegedly checking each page of each doc.

[5hout]

You are 100% correct on not working extra hours/weekends. Once you do that they learn you will do that and their poor planning becomes status quo. Scope, Schedule, Budget controls everything. Any one of those change they all change.

It took till I had a kid for me to learn this. In 2019 or 2018 I worked something like 65 days straight without more than a half day off on Sundays. It was good to climb up from the morass of the unwashed, but no way to live a life.

[DoctorWho]

That whole world was invented after my brief litigation experience -- where way-overpaid associates reviewed documents.

I've heard the history that Microsoft in the 90s (a nearly perfect defendant for charging with patent infringement) got tired of the review model and either set up or helped set up a group dedicated to only document review. How much of that history is true?

PS. Does R = relevant? If so, how does that work in practice for, say, a 50 page document that might have one paragraph of relevent info? Do human eyes still scan through the doc?

R: Relevant/Responsive/Related (depending on which attorney drafts the RFP/where they are from/moon phase).

Brief History of eDoc Review:
Microsoft: I've not heard the particular story, but it makes some sense (I know google, for example, has (or had) it's own contract doc review staff to prevent outside counsel over-billing). My understanding is that tech people were pushing this as the next big thing from the 90s on. But it took till the mid 00s before the court rules (and the total domination of email as the way of doing business) finally came around to ediscovery being essential in civil litigation (FRCP explicitly endorsed computer chat and emails as discoverable documents in 06). However, it was the '08 crash (per what I've read) that really sealed the deal. No one was paying BigLaw rates for people to look at 500-1k emails a day, and it forced even established firms to seek out lower cost contract labor for the 1st line review.

Another factor that was huge was growth of project size. I've heard from old timers that a big project was 50k documents, with a huge project at 200k. Once email/chat exploded it wasn't uncommon for search terms to turn up 1m+ documents to be reviewed for relevance. That's just not possible for a law firm to handle with any # of "real" attorneys.

Plus the courts are, as is their wont, rightfully extremely distrustful of using machine learning/algos for doc review (spoiler alert: they're shit), so you've got email/chat/hard drive growth (08 was what? 100gb? less on normal people computers, now multi TB computers are common) meaning even more documents/copies of docs/old versions never deleted, chat logs for a decade, spam emails, but you can't really use computers to cull all this out b/c the courts assume you're scamming them.

So a perfect storm of more docs, cost conscious clients and even if the client is willing to pay, simply not enough attorneys to do it anyway. Consider project that takes 120 reviewers a month to do, that'd be 10% of Quinn Emmanuel or a similar sized firm working on 1 project. Just can't do it.

Process/answer to: "If so, how does that work in practice for, say, a 50 page document that might have one paragraph of relevent info? Do human eyes still scan through the doc?"

So right now the "standard" model is something like this. You've got a universe of docs you've culled out of all available data via fighting with the other side on search terms. You either linearly review the documents 1 by 1, or use some kind of assisted review. Either way you set a bunch of highlights up on the documents to make it easier to find key info.

In the linear review model once there is a single responsive search term hit in the document an attorney will review the entire document for Relevance, Priv (and sometimes other factors like confidentiality, PII, hotness) PLUS any attached documents (so emails + attachments, powerpoints + linked files and so on). ALLEGEDLY the attorney doesn't rely on the highlighting and skims all 50 pages of the document for privileged content/responsive content/hot content (such as dick pic slipped into the middle of a slideshow in a sexual harassment case).

Now, if the document is actually R (and not priv), what happens next is a matter of whatever you've fought out with the other side. 99% of the time this means the entire document + attached documents are produced. Sometimes you can get the most sensitive documents classified as Attorney's Eyes Only (meaning opposing counsel cannot show them to the client). On very rare occasions you can redact key non-responsive information (I'd say this happens on 1 case every 18 months, but sometimes stuff is that sensitive and not related to the case that the court allows it).

This is why the fight over search terms and exact wording of RFPs is important, b/c it's hugely powerful in determining how much extraneous info (i.e. ammunition) you're handing over to the other side b/c there is one R paragraph buried in a massive email chain and now the entire email chain + all attachments are going over the wall.

In a computer assisted model (TAR/CAL are common types) you basically review an initial set of documents, this is used to train the algo, the algo rank orders all documents, you review them in order (which continuously re-trains the model). Eventually the model spits out an estimate of the likelihood of the remaining documents having R content that is low enough the parties agree it's ok to not review them. You run a test sample on the remaining documents, then you're done (with a bunch of other quibbles b/c the process is actually very complicated and doesn't work for anything other than text (yet) and also is shit).

In my experience it is extremely, extremely rare, for a document to go out the door without human eyes (allegedly) looking at the entire thing, plus it being feed through at least one quality control workflow. Sometimes it happens (mass coding where counsel believes there can't be priv), but you never know when there's going to be a handwritten note on a scanned document that says "Legal issue here per in-house counsel, must stop program" or something like this, so even if it's just an "everything we don't find priv on is going out the door" priv only review. However, my experience has sampling bias, b/c I'm only brought in once the decision to manually review at least some docs is made, it's possible there are other reviews I'm involved with/don't ever see that push shit out the door without someone allegedly checking each page of each doc.

Thanks for the explanation. I was on my way out just as e-discovery was becoming a thing.

You were generous not to run down the big firm litigators, where there are some very stressed out people of the kind who are not good at handling stress.

[mouse]

One of the proto builds I was working on transferred to its forever home while I was away last week. Our dept manager allowed a heist unlike any I have ever seen in terms of equipment that went with it, somewhere around $40K of my tooling.

I had raised the alarm on this for weeks (maybe a month or more) leading up to it that it would hurt our capacity and I was going to want it immediately replaced, was told it wouldn't be an issue...

Put the req in for the replacements before I left, returned to an email asking me to 'remove line items 1 and 2' from my list so it could be approved. Items 1 and 2 are the $38K I wanted, the rest was maybe $1400 in hand tools.

To no surprise, I was swindled.

Yesterday at a group pow wow with our immediate boss we got asked if we had any ideas for new equipment our dept could use because we 'supposedly' had hundreds of thousands sitting around in a budget that needs to get used...

"How about $40,000 worth of torque controllers and drivers?"

*crickets*

[5hout]

One of the proto builds I was working on transferred to its forever home while I was away last week. Our dept manager allowed a heist unlike any I have ever seen in terms of equipment that went with it, somewhere around $40K of my tooling.

I had raised the alarm on this for weeks (maybe a month or more) leading up to it that it would hurt our capacity and I was going to want it immediately replaced, was told it wouldn't be an issue...

Put the req in for the replacements before I left, returned to an email asking me to 'remove line items 1 and 2' from my list so it could be approved. Items 1 and 2 are the $38K I wanted, the rest was maybe $1400 in hand tools.

To no surprise, I was swindled.

Yesterday at a group pow wow with our immediate boss we got asked if we had any ideas for new equipment our dept could use because we 'supposedly' had hundreds of thousands sitting around in a budget that needs to get used...

"How about $40,000 worth of torque controllers and drivers?"

*crickets*

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in Dilbert, then you post and it's literally like watching Dilbert Comics ~1998 IRL.

[mouse]

One of the proto builds I was working on transferred to its forever home while I was away last week. Our dept manager allowed a heist unlike any I have ever seen in terms of equipment that went with it, somewhere around $40K of my tooling.

I had raised the alarm on this for weeks (maybe a month or more) leading up to it that it would hurt our capacity and I was going to want it immediately replaced, was told it wouldn't be an issue...

Put the req in for the replacements before I left, returned to an email asking me to 'remove line items 1 and 2' from my list so it could be approved. Items 1 and 2 are the $38K I wanted, the rest was maybe $1400 in hand tools.

To no surprise, I was swindled.

Yesterday at a group pow wow with our immediate boss we got asked if we had any ideas for new equipment our dept could use because we 'supposedly' had hundreds of thousands sitting around in a budget that needs to get used...

"How about $40,000 worth of torque controllers and drivers?"

*crickets*

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in Dilbert, then you post and it's literally like watching Dilbert Comics ~1998 IRL.

I wish I had a little cynical dog sidekick that followed me around...

Would make this bullshit a lot more tolerable.

[5hout]

1. Her monitor is taller/not wider, can I rebuild the interface for that?
2. Someone who took Friday off didn't respond to an email (they cannot check emails when not logged in from desktop).
3. Different person took an unannounced half day, should we send msgs to see if he's having any technical issues or if he just forgot to say "leaving early on friday" in chat?
4. A chat room from the last phase has the wrong name for this phase. This could confuse people. Should we provide instructions to the team on the use of the chat room?
5. Someone coded a bunch of docs wrong 6 months ago and then we qc'd them and counsel qc'd them, but they are still wrong (counsel changed their minds between then and now on a bunch of stuff) should we track down who did it and send feedback? note: we released over 100 people from the team so odds are (since we released all the shitters) it was a released shitter. in any event given people feedback b/c of shit they did 6 months ago is a waste of time
6. We don't have event handlers set up so people can select options that cannot possibly exist together (i.e. priv logging not priv docs). Counsel has refused event handlers every single time we've asked, going back to DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR and we've asked, idk, 10 or 15 times? (I was not in charge of asking and said we shouldn't ask b/c we look retarded asking again). She wants to know if we should "just ask one more time?".

This is one person, TODAY. It's like working with a yappy dog. She's good at the actual work, but holy shit stop raising "issues" please for the love of god.

EDIT:

7. Different people are making judgement calls differently, how can we align them all? IDK, but when you find out patent it.

[DCR]

1. Her monitor is taller/not wider, can I rebuild the interface for that?
2. Someone who took Friday off didn't respond to an email (they cannot check emails when not logged in from desktop).
3. Different person took an unannounced half day, should we send msgs to see if he's having any technical issues or if he just forgot to say "leaving early on friday" in chat?
4. A chat room from the last phase has the wrong name for this phase. This could confuse people. Should we provide instructions to the team on the use of the chat room?
5. Someone coded a bunch of docs wrong 6 months ago and then we qc'd them and counsel qc'd them, but they are still wrong (counsel changed their minds between then and now on a bunch of stuff) should we track down who did it and send feedback? note: we released over 100 people from the team so odds are (since we released all the shitters) it was a released shitter. in any event given people feedback b/c of shit they did 6 months ago is a waste of time
6. We don't have event handlers set up so people can select options that cannot possibly exist together (i.e. priv logging not priv docs). Counsel has refused event handlers every single time we've asked, going back to DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR and we've asked, idk, 10 or 15 times? (I was not in charge of asking and said we shouldn't ask b/c we look retarded asking again). She wants to know if we should "just ask one more time?".

This is one person, TODAY. It's like working with a yappy dog. She's good at the actual work, but holy shit stop raising "issues" please for the love of god.

EDIT:

7. Different people are making judgement calls differently, how can we align them all? IDK, but when you find out patent it.

The version of this that her significant other is going to have to sit through tonight is going to be incredible.

[mouse]

Our service anniversary (5, 10, 15 years etc) 'bonuses' for some time have gone through the same system that their attaboy rewards go through since they stopped doing cash payouts years back. Typically I just cash them out in the form of an Amazon gift card and use them at will.

Well one of my comrades discovered just now that service anniversary 'points' can only be used at our internal Amazon 'store' (think like a wish.com version of amazon with less inventory and inflated "prices") or on company swag.

This means of the $360 I was planning on using in my kids' Christmas budget I now have... $35...

I'm literally Clark Griswold and this is my jelly of the month.