I'm all for consistency but , in this case, it can get carried too far.
An environment I inherited at my last employer was generic names "RMBY11" - Retail Merchandise Buyer #11". I hated that. Network was First Initial, Last name. As soon as I could, I moved us to that model. Made life so much easier.
At my current employer, at which I am not an admin, the standard is one of three from various timeframes. Drives me nuts....
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Yeung
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:44 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Database design question
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Roger Harman <roger.harman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's how we handled it at a previous employer. Or, add a middle initial to one.
I'm not a fan of the inconsistent-use-of-middle-initial idea. We do it
here, but of course that's not my idea.
The whole point of Rob's rule (or whoever came up with the rule where
he works) is to be consistent. If you want to have a rule that every
user ID must have a middle initial, no ifs, ands, or buts, that's
fine. It reduces the occurrence of "natural" collisions. But you still
have to have a way to handle collisions. And, in the spirit of
consistency, it should just be ONE way.
A sequential number based on the order in which people are hired is a
decent choice.
Another choice would be to never hire anyone whose name clashes with
an existing user ID. :) (I can see it now: "Are you willing to
relocate? Oh, good. Are you willing to legally change your name? Well,
it was nice to meet you. Good luck!")
John Y.
midrange.com
