Resolution
So after weeks of waiting, it appears most things have been settled satisfactorily.
A few days after I sent the last email to Joe (prior entry) we had a short, but good conversation, where again he at least seemed to be hearing my complaints and sympathizing. But he had read my email and had definitely thought about it. The conversation was too short to find out what plans, if any, he had to deal with it.
Last Monday we met for our bi-annual review. Overall he was happy with my progress, but blamed me for the inter-personal issues because I was too controlling of the code. I understand where was coming from, I am protective of the code, but I disagreed with him on a number of points. First, there was a particular 'incident' with Mothy where I just disagreed on the facts. Secondly, I disagreed with his opinion that I should be able to work with someone on the same exact piece of code without the need for boundaries (i.e. two people can work on the same object class). I am of the opinion that teams work best when there are clearly defined components, someone is responsible for each component and the teams decides on the interfaces. The granularity of components is dependent on the number of people, skills, etc. Although it may be a beneficial skill to be able to work so closely with someone else, its not required, nor should be expected.
My review of Joe was also mostly positive. The one exception was his lacking of dealing with some problems early and not seriously.
As for my three big complaints (the paper, open meetings, no rewrite), most of those issues have come to some resolution in the past few days.
My name was added to the paper today and the treatment of PIER in the paper was mostly fair. Almost none of my edits were reversed. There is one section that is just bogus, but it is not too bad. I can believe that it was not dealt with due to time constraints.
As for P2 (the current name of the PIER rewrite), it is no longer going to be considered a rewrite. It will still be written, but is no longer meant to replace or subsume PIER, rather compete with PIER as an alternative. This was the compromise I was looking for. It is not the best outcome, in that there is now direct competition and PIER will have relatively little development resources compared to P2, but it is better than being outright replaced for no good reason. P2 design discussions are still 'closed', but I care less about that now.
Mothy and I still do not get along, in fact through this whole thing we have barely even spoken to each other about any of this. I still think Joe is avoiding this underlying issue, but that is his choice. He did come through and fix most of the major issues. I'm glad he did, I really respect the man, and it would have been very disappointing if he had not finally stepped in.
I still need to get PIER in a better shape and get more papers out the door before P2 does. Which means even more work for me. Oh boy! However, Joe is going to let me hire a second undergrad to assist in coding.
A few days after I sent the last email to Joe (prior entry) we had a short, but good conversation, where again he at least seemed to be hearing my complaints and sympathizing. But he had read my email and had definitely thought about it. The conversation was too short to find out what plans, if any, he had to deal with it.
Last Monday we met for our bi-annual review. Overall he was happy with my progress, but blamed me for the inter-personal issues because I was too controlling of the code. I understand where was coming from, I am protective of the code, but I disagreed with him on a number of points. First, there was a particular 'incident' with Mothy where I just disagreed on the facts. Secondly, I disagreed with his opinion that I should be able to work with someone on the same exact piece of code without the need for boundaries (i.e. two people can work on the same object class). I am of the opinion that teams work best when there are clearly defined components, someone is responsible for each component and the teams decides on the interfaces. The granularity of components is dependent on the number of people, skills, etc. Although it may be a beneficial skill to be able to work so closely with someone else, its not required, nor should be expected.
My review of Joe was also mostly positive. The one exception was his lacking of dealing with some problems early and not seriously.
As for my three big complaints (the paper, open meetings, no rewrite), most of those issues have come to some resolution in the past few days.
My name was added to the paper today and the treatment of PIER in the paper was mostly fair. Almost none of my edits were reversed. There is one section that is just bogus, but it is not too bad. I can believe that it was not dealt with due to time constraints.
As for P2 (the current name of the PIER rewrite), it is no longer going to be considered a rewrite. It will still be written, but is no longer meant to replace or subsume PIER, rather compete with PIER as an alternative. This was the compromise I was looking for. It is not the best outcome, in that there is now direct competition and PIER will have relatively little development resources compared to P2, but it is better than being outright replaced for no good reason. P2 design discussions are still 'closed', but I care less about that now.
Mothy and I still do not get along, in fact through this whole thing we have barely even spoken to each other about any of this. I still think Joe is avoiding this underlying issue, but that is his choice. He did come through and fix most of the major issues. I'm glad he did, I really respect the man, and it would have been very disappointing if he had not finally stepped in.
I still need to get PIER in a better shape and get more papers out the door before P2 does. Which means even more work for me. Oh boy! However, Joe is going to let me hire a second undergrad to assist in coding.