While we are not porting the SDKs, we are targeting end of April for framework integrations, so most Stormpath users can migrate with a pretty simple version upgrade. Most users are working with these and not our base SDKs. We are prioritizing:
Java Spring
Java Spring Boot
Node Express
ASP.NET 4.x
ASP.NET Core
And yes, if a user is deprovisioned in GApps then their LDAP credentials are suspended until they are re-activated. The goal of Foxpass is to make GApps the source of truth.
One thing missing here: Ask the "target" person before lobbing an introduction into their inbox.
Intros aren't always welcome - the target could be busy, traveling or have a conflict of interest. They may not be in a position to give that person time, however helpful they would like to be. When the supplier assumes the introduction is okay, they can put both sides of the intro in a tough spot.
I disagree with this in 9/10 cases. If you're so busy you can't take 15 minutes to chat with someone who comes from outside your network, you're doing something wrong. Get over yourself, take the intro and try to be classy about it.
The 1/10 case would be intros to people who are either in a position where they likely receive dozens of emails from folks they don't know every day (e.g., VCs) or folks with enough name recognition to be in that same spot (e.g., famous people you might know).
You might jeopardize your relationship with the person in that case, but for most of your friends and pretty much anyone reading this comment, you're better off being open instead of self-important.
> If you're so busy you can't take 15 minutes to chat with someone who comes from outside your network, you're doing something wrong
I'm not busy, I just don't want to. I don't want to hear about your startup. I don't want to hear about how great of an opportunity working for it is. I want to read a book, go running, or hang out with my friends.
This perspective asks too much of everyone. If I want to make an intro to you, it's because I think it's helpful. It's the opposite of disrespect.
To then place the additional burden on me of checking in with you first is, in my mind, just cocky. Not my job to know your schedule, and how about respecting the fact that I'm trying to help?
People who insist on pre-introductions are vastly overestimating how much others should be thinking about them or "respecting their time," which is actually no one else's business. Responsible adults can handle the additional burden of someone trying to help.
OK, so I'll add some context, you tell me what you think. I have almost 20 years experience in 2 very niche fields (consumer electronics and TV technologies). As a result, I've built up a lot of domain expertise and a lot of industry contacts. Again - no judgement here on whether I'm good or not, just stating some facts.
I frequently get emails from people introducing me to "Bob" who is starting a hardware startup and really wants to learn how to bring a gadget to market. For me, this is fun - I love to talk about this stuff. I've mentored/nurtured/consulted for dozens of these startups, and continue to do so to this day.
BUT - I'm also running a startup and have a family at home. Which means I have much, much less time available than I used to. So every "Fun" activity I choose to take takes away from either my work time or my personal time. This is fine - as long as I can manage it. Which I do. Until requests show up uninvited. Which now puts, as I've said, a burden in my lap.
I can choose to either (A) reply and take on the intro, (B) reply and decline (as politely as I possibly can), or (C) ignore it. So I never do (C), as I feel it's rude, but I can guarantee you that every time I do (B) I create a negative perception about myself.
I don't like being put in a position where I have to tell other people - who genuinely could use my help - that I am too busy for them. But what else am I supposed to do?
Whereas when my colleague asks if I'm up for an intro, and I can say no to someone who I already have a relationship with, and will understand me, is fine to me.
Maybe you think the above is wrong, but I don't...
I don't think people have a huge issue with blind introductions when it's clear that the intention is to help them. I suspect most of the issue is when the benefit to them is unclear / dubious / highly theoretical - when the benefit is more clearly going to the introducer or the person to whom you're being introduced.
This is a tough one. The challenge with doing this is it greatly increases the work involved, and increases the chance that something gets dropped.
I try to balance it by including everyone on the first note if I can satisfy one of the criterias:
- It would be plausible for them to know each other, and they are of similar status.
- One of them is in the job of taking these intros. (Recruiters, etc)
- I'm 95% sure that they'll hit it off immediately.
The tone of this post is yet another reason to love team Watsi. Really fun for an early stage company (for-profit or non) to be spending time and money on this instead of on more interesting things like building their business.
The upshot for us is that we can let customers know not just that we're having an issue, but also details about the issue that might impact the service. As a SaaS API, its important that we give good transparency into even minor blips in the service. Statuspage.io isn't as customizable as I would like it to be, but it makes it really easy for someone not on the dev team to manage communication while others fix the problem. Also, its hella straightforward to set up and use.
http://status.stormpath.com/
David - you are one of my favorites, but what does Recruiters being pretty have to do with finding/not finding a good one? This is a great article, but is there a tie-in I'm missing here?
First, thanks. The focus of the article is obviously on ways to identify and evaluate recruiters from an engineer's perspective. The part about some recruiters being pretty was something I felt worth noting that was on my mind (a few mentions to me recently), but not worthy of an entire post.
The pretty part is just an abbreviated rant on the way the industry is headed, where substance and knowledge are being replaced by trying to get a candidate's attention with shiny things. It's not new, just annoying.
I agree with the direction of the industry, and your abbreviated rant, except I think they are trying to get attention with... anything at their disposal.
For me what is interesting is how magnetically opposed developers can be to a perceived outsider. And how that works against the recruiter, etc. in question. E.g. We're really lucky with our outside recruiter and she has a lot of credibility, but when she hung out at our booth at OSCON with her lovely female assistant, they clearly stood out and attendees cut a wide swath. Same thing at a different con with one of our investors: extremely technical guy, but you can spot his BD/VC uniform from across the room. I shuffle their conversations away from my booth.
Conversely, I had an interesting conversation in a booth at a different con, where after 20 minutes of talking to me (messy ponytail, company tshirt, jeans, tigers) about our stack, a guy said to me, "Wait a sec, you smell like marketing." By which he meant that I was coming across as non-technical as we got deeper into the technical details (totally fair - I am not a professional developer). I think he felt bamboozled by my lack of shininess.
The shiny girl probably like being shiny, and don't care for the tshirt/jeans/ponytail uniform. There's actually a lot of cool ways technical women subvert the uniform without freaking anyone out (I have hot pink lipstick). I would venture they feel uncomfortable about standing out more than they are plotting to lure you.
Half the recruiter's battle is getting inside that force field that technologists put up regarding recruiters. In another HN thread, I offered to have a discussion about career to a fairly well-known tech community member, and was immediately accused of trying to recruit the guy (although I do no work in his geography, which I even alluded to in the post). People assume recruiters are always recruiting, so it's impossible to have a conversation. I've run a Java Users Group for 13 years and they are comfortable because they know me, but if I go to meet a client company onsite, they seem to think I'm casing the place to start poaching.
It's a strange business with lots of dynamics, and the issue I mention isn't discussed much in my experience. I've seen BD/sales types at my UG meetings, both male and female, that scared people away due to their look, or even by a harmless "Hi" from them (people at UGs hate sales pitches).
