When I was at Amazon it was decided on by you and your manager. Some people used their initials which was actually remarkably easy to remember because it was different from most of the rest of the people. One person used the first initial of their first name (single character) which was also very easy to remember. I got to use my first name (which probably wouldn't have been useful if i was named 'john', but i'm not). Some users had first-name+last-initial when that worked, some people with easy to spell last names used first-initial+last-name. Some people used nicknames. Generally it worked way better than the enforced first-initial+last-name we have at my current job (which has all kinds of exceptions anyway -- but never for all the people with entirely unpronouncable/unspellable last names).
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> So any stardard is going to break no matter what you do. Which is why >> I liked the Lucent one. There was no standard name, which meant no >> standard expecations to break. > > The only thing I didn't like about the lucent one was ... at first, the name > was chosen by HR. > > The naming convention I use for my users is: User chooses their username, > which must be unambiguously based on their real name, and max 8 characters. > This way, you can see any file owned by jsmith, and you'll unambiguously > know it belongs to John. > > Users are all coming from somewhere, and they prefer to have the same > username at different locations. So why should I be eharvey at one company, > and harveyed at some other company? > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lopsa.org > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
