I’m familiar with one Western European country and for it 11k (euro)/month would be really high. You can DM me if you want more information in case it’s relevant.

I haven't applied to anything on angel.co but they seem to be for early start ups.

In Portland there is portlandtech.org, which lists tech companies with openings. Well, mostly tech companies there are pure marketing firms and some light manufacturing in the list as well. I found it by googling for lists of start ups in a city or lists of tech companies. I'm switching to Seattle and am starting with the geek wire 200 list of companies. Where are you looking to live? If it's Colorado PM me and I'll point you at my old company which may interest you.

Probably either LA or remote.

The numbers are not euros, they're a rough approximation in my local currency, I just posted them for scale.

Mostly I'm interested if people here think it is reasonable to want a 2k raise on a 9k current salary (+22% raise) if I'm moving companies, or if I'm overshooting with that number.

I mean it's not an unreasonable request, but the argument shouldn't be about why you need 20% to move unless a company is trying to poach you specifically. It should be more about why you're worth that much. If the 22% is more in line with market rate you should be fine.

Wow 11k a month, i thought i was doing well

What's with the anchoring of your salary? That's how people get low-balled. Always aim for market rate and disregard what you are making now. That's the best way to handle it.

Again, this isn't euros or usd. If I convert this target to USD its around 120k annually. I'm sure there are plenty of people itt that make more, and the cost of living here is almost comparable to SF.

The median market rate for last february was 9.6k according to a survey. That's simply not enough to convince me to move. That's why I'm internally anchoring at my salary, just for my own perspective. I don't plan on telling them my current salary.

I figure I'd need at least a 1k bump to make this move, so I shoot for +2k and hopefully they'll meet me in the middle. If not I can always stay where I am.

This. The company I just accepted an offer from never even asked me my current salary. They know I'm worth market rate so what difference does it make?

iirc your new job is in CA, right? It's now illegal to ask:

I hate repeating myself, but...

This might've been discussed in my thread in OOT, but:

it's illegal in california, but not really. The fine is like $500 max. I would be amazed if anyone's actually been fined. It's still in a company's best interest to ask anyway.

I didn't tell my company what I made when I applied, I just said I was looking close to market.

Didn't you just graduate college?

Tomorrow i do

so since i start monday full time my boss had a convo with me today about what he wants and stuff. I was planning on having that convo with him today anyway ironically. he said I'm doing really well but also mentioned that I shouldnt be afraid to put my foot down. I knew what he meant, because there are a few slackers on our team and I've been kind of shy speaking up. He said he noticed and that it was totally fine to "put my foot down", since I was the one responsible for it in the end.

So that scares me a tad. I'm trying diplomacy as best as i can - for instance my whole team HATES face to face meetings, so i just said if crap doesn't get done it just means we have to spend more time in meetings and no one wants that.

I brought up the idea of an engineering slack channel but I guess someone tried that a few months ago and the lololds got super irate about it and shot it down. Oh well. That was my best effort to try to reduce the standups, which we only do like once a week anyway - but I'm having a feeling I may need to up that frequency.

Oh yea, and he wanted me to break down how I've been spending my time - I told him about 2-3 hours a day on project management stuff, and the rest on study and reviewing code. He said that was fine but he wants me to spend like 50/50 of my effort on project management and then development for the rest of it. I'll be writing some unit tests next week.

I've gotta wear a lot of hats but I think I can do it.

My team is interesting, the level in skill/work ethic is quite diverse:

One guy is a ****ing 22 year old genius. Like I swear to god the best programmer i have ever seen, ever. I thought barrin was the best I had seen but nah this kid is a total rockstar and a half.

Example:

We had an extremely bizarre bug where the actual #define version number was causing a bug the way it was stored on disk. If the version # was a very specific value, the program would get confused and crash at seeming random. It had stumped everyone, even our senior devs. He figured this out in no more than a few hours. When I asked him how, he just said "trial and error."

You could give me a lifetime to figure that out and I never would. This kid does like 80% of the work on every project. He is kind of quick to commit without thoroughly testing but other than that, you don't even need to tell him to do anything, he'll take initiative on his own and go above and beyond every time.

The other guy is like the senior "architect" and is really lazy/kind of toxic. He's the most brilliant out of everyone but freely admits to browsing FB all day and reviles the meetings/extremely minimal process I have in place now. To get him to do anything takes forever. I think the root cause is he's extremely unhappy and isn't allowed to do what he actually wants to do, because the big big boss has a lot of regular disagreements with him. Not sure how to address this at all.

The last member of my core team is a girl who is very nice and sweet but seems a little lost all the time, doesn't like meetings, and seems to groan any time she's asked to do something. I'm not sure if it's because she feels some things are beneath her or she just doesnt understand the source enough, but she's left out of a lot of the "serious" architecture discussions, which I recently started getting her involved in by inviting her and asking her input.

I'm sensing that her role was more similar to mine now before I came, in fact I'm almost positive. So idk what to do about that either. I guess I'll just figure it out as I go along, but so far I feel I'm doing well and have a good grasp on the situation.

Stand-ups aren't team meetings and once or twice a sprint isn't going to let you be successful. You have no idea what is going on with the sprint if you only check the status once, you certainly limit yourself to what kinds of mitigations are possible. Make sure you're only asking 3 questions during the stand-up:
What did you do yesterday?
What are you doing today?
Are you blocked?

Then look at the burn down and ask if everyone is still comfortable with their sprint commit. Anything else is a meet after, if the blocker can't be described in a couple of minutes it's a meet after. That should be no more than 15-20 minutes. Remember that your bosses decided on this process and you're just implementing it.

the way we do things now was my boss's idea - I check in via email pretty frequently, or walk into their office and ask how they are progressing. I know you lose the group accountability that way.

also keep in mind we're doing 1 week sprints. I'm not saying it's optimal or even good or ok, but I'm just working with what I have. I can't stress enough how much my team hates standups/any face to face conversation whatsoever.

how do you suggest I broach this subject with them?

You should do some research so you can figure out why what you're doing is setting you up for failure.

I guess a problem is I'm trying to run it like a democracy and that wasn't working before so I should probably just sack up and say too bad, this is how we're doing it. But I really would rather sell it.

no believe me I have - I read like 40 scrum academic papers in my first few weeks there. I just don't really know what to do about it from my junior and frankly kind of unqualified position.

Look at the stuff your boss isn't doing. Look at what the underlying purpose of that thing is and what the risk is of not doing it. Understand that is going to apply to your particular company. The whole thing is built around constant improvement so you don't need to jump into Agile whole hog. But you really should be able to advocate for the full process by knowing the reason for the different ceremonies and artifacts. It's the kind of thing that I'm almost sure there are meet ups in your area to go to and talk about.

jmakin - imo just do your best, keep a good attitude and remember that no matter what happens it will be a great learning experience for you. This company sounds like it has some issues. But you will gain from anything you do at this point.

To that end - if your responsibilities are vague - steer yourself towards areas of interest - which it sounds like you are doing.

thank you for the advice. I'll keep posting updates.

What I think I might do next week is make an agile/scrum presentation, present it to my boss + core team, and have a meeting to decide what can work for everyone so we're not setting ourselves up for annoyance or crappy processes.

I am working on a test case on the side right now for a bug that has everyone stumped.

What I basically need to do is simulate a crash or power failure during a write to disk. It's easy to simulate this with one process - I just send a signal to the child process after he notifies the main thread he's about to enter the write routine.

But what I want to do is crash 2 (or more) children simultaneously as they are writing - what would be the best way to ensure this happens with fairly high/certain probability? I tried the same method and I am having trouble coordinating them.

I'm using C/linux