I want to be a whistleblower!

 Actually I don't. Or I would, if I had anything to be a whistleblower about. But I think we should encourage whistleblowers, there should be a process.

So, what's important to a whistleblower? Money? Secrecy? Accountability? Maybe just a way to say "I was a whistleblower before I was fired", since I've often heard of whistleblowers being described as "disgruntled ex-employees"?

I think whistleblowing applies to crimes. There should be a state-level process to provide concrete and detailed accusations, with no possible blowback. The process should allow people to provide information they are not otherwise legally allowed to disclose. It should be infeasible to determine if someone has given information. Most importantly, the person should be able to demonstrate that they did provide information about a crime in a timely manner.

I think this could easily be implemented as a web site, so I'm surprised that it doesn't already exist. To enter into the web site you would enter a number that you can easily remember - say your credit card or mobile phone number, combined with your postcode or year of birth. These numbers should not be verified, allowing the submitter to add a deliberate mistake. However there should be a "Captcha", to prevent fishing expeditions. Ideally under duress you could "prove" that you DID NOT submit any information, while being able to prove that you DID in a court-of-law situation.

Whistleblower reports should be available to police, anonymously. If a whistleblower reconnects, they should be able to see feedback from the police. Statistical aggregations should be used to highlight problems at a company or discrimination across an industry.

A whistleblower submission does not have the same value as a complaint lodged with the police, but if the information provided is sufficiently detailed and credible the police should not be prevented from opening an investigation.

This seems so easy it should be obvious. Who is scared of building a system like this? The police are overworked? The police would be accused? Industry would be scared? Journalists would be out of work? Wikileaks and other anonymous disclosure hotlines exist, but they need journalists to publicize information, meaning that small problems are ignored, and they offer no legal protection.

Should whistleblower submissions be made public after 50 years?

I am Support

I work for a company that sells software. My job is software-support. I help clients and partners to use our software. I want to talk about my job.

Why does this job exist? The support isn't supposed to develop corrections, and fundamentally we don't do anything that the developers can't do. We cost money and if the client doesn't call we have nothing to do!

However if you don't have a support team, what happens? The customer questions will be managed directly by the development team. You will still need to decide who should pick up the phone or check the emails. Perhaps its a secretary? They will still need to know what to do - which developer to contact. Maybe the boss will dispatch?

In short, all software vendors have a support team. They just appear, like foam on a beer. They exist because the developers don't want to be interrupted. Developers have plans and sprints and schedules that customers don't know about. Developers are assigned to projects and become experts in new domains - they move on. The support reduces the interruptions for the development.

Sometimes we believe that the clients pay for the support, so the support is a profitable activity. This is a misconception. The  support works for the developers, and the clients are buying an insurance policy. In fact the software maintenance revenue pays the cost of development of their current product and future products - especially the ones that fail.

Support teams should be overstaffed, to handle peak activity. Outside of peak activity support must find other occupations. Often the development can suck the support into testing or infrastructure administration activities. The support can help the documentation team navigate the product. The support can act as occasional trainers for the clients. Generally the support team knows the products better than anyone else, so we are the best people to work on small customer integration projects. However - to the annoyance of all - support can't commit to a deadline for these extra activities - the peak is coming!

So here I am. I'm not a developer, I can't build a product. I'm a facilitator, trouble-shooter, a reference. I bring clarity and, hopefully, understanding. Sometimes I think I'm an accelerator, like petrol to a fire. Its a job with variety and satisfaction, but also frustration since I can't actually change the products. I've been doing it for 30 years, its what I've become.