Did I go get briefed, or what?
May. 12th, 2005 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpYesterday was one of those days that made me both nostalgic for that time when I was working in the software industry and in the thick of development efforts, and reminded me of why I don't do that kind work any more.
In general terms, this gig involves helping get U.S. software certified to run at Russian sites. However, unless you are familiar with just how particular some people can be about what it means to "validate," "test," or "certify" software, you will likely underestimate the level of effort involved.
As a kickoff day, the schedule was fairly intense, especially if one considers that two of the participants were still operating on "Moscow time." There were a lot of people working in the two rooms allotted for this task, and computers all over the place. During a break, I got to talking with one of the software engineers involved in the project, and it turns out to be a small world: Scott was one of the coders working on the C++ compiler at Borland back when both he and I worked for the company.
In the end, my chargeable time was nearly 11 hours, which frankly is short of the hours I actually worked (I showed up early and there was dinner afterward, but as primo, I was at the restaurant of my own free will, segundo, I knew what I was getting into, and tercero,the host paid my tab... well, it somehow doesn't seem fair to charge that time).
One of the things I need to work on is divorcing my software "situational awareness" from my interpretation work (think of it as suspending judgment on what is being said between the folks actually having the conversation). Then again, in the couple of instances where I did interject my own opinion, the result has been positive.
There are various schools of thought on the subject. Some would maintain that the interpreter's job is to strictly interpret, and that any confusion and misunderstanding in the ensuing interaction ought to be the result of what is being said - two people just not connecting - and not of how it is being interpreted. The operative phrase that comes to mind to describe this approach is: "You're not being paid to think."
I consider this to be something of an extreme position, and one that really makes sense only if the interpreter has no earthly idea of what is being communicated. In most cases where people seem intent on misunderstanding one another, however, the interpreter is in an ideal position to identify the failure to communicate and to try to correct it. The issue is: how to do that and retain one's professionalism?
I made it perfectly clear yesterday, each time I contributed my own two cents (and never while actually interpreting someone's utterance), that it was my own two cents in the balance. And while the results were positive, there is a need for me to be particularly cautious as far as contributing any more nuggets (or, to keep the metaphor limping along, pennies), because the one thing you never, ever want to do is derail the proceedings and have people go chase some non-issue as a result of your having called "Tally-ho!"
Cheers...
In general terms, this gig involves helping get U.S. software certified to run at Russian sites. However, unless you are familiar with just how particular some people can be about what it means to "validate," "test," or "certify" software, you will likely underestimate the level of effort involved.
As a kickoff day, the schedule was fairly intense, especially if one considers that two of the participants were still operating on "Moscow time." There were a lot of people working in the two rooms allotted for this task, and computers all over the place. During a break, I got to talking with one of the software engineers involved in the project, and it turns out to be a small world: Scott was one of the coders working on the C++ compiler at Borland back when both he and I worked for the company.
In the end, my chargeable time was nearly 11 hours, which frankly is short of the hours I actually worked (I showed up early and there was dinner afterward, but as primo, I was at the restaurant of my own free will, segundo, I knew what I was getting into, and tercero,the host paid my tab... well, it somehow doesn't seem fair to charge that time).
One of the things I need to work on is divorcing my software "situational awareness" from my interpretation work (think of it as suspending judgment on what is being said between the folks actually having the conversation). Then again, in the couple of instances where I did interject my own opinion, the result has been positive.
There are various schools of thought on the subject. Some would maintain that the interpreter's job is to strictly interpret, and that any confusion and misunderstanding in the ensuing interaction ought to be the result of what is being said - two people just not connecting - and not of how it is being interpreted. The operative phrase that comes to mind to describe this approach is: "You're not being paid to think."
I consider this to be something of an extreme position, and one that really makes sense only if the interpreter has no earthly idea of what is being communicated. In most cases where people seem intent on misunderstanding one another, however, the interpreter is in an ideal position to identify the failure to communicate and to try to correct it. The issue is: how to do that and retain one's professionalism?
I made it perfectly clear yesterday, each time I contributed my own two cents (and never while actually interpreting someone's utterance), that it was my own two cents in the balance. And while the results were positive, there is a need for me to be particularly cautious as far as contributing any more nuggets (or, to keep the metaphor limping along, pennies), because the one thing you never, ever want to do is derail the proceedings and have people go chase some non-issue as a result of your having called "Tally-ho!"
Cheers...
