[Clent]

It feels like you're just finding other ways to describe people who are senior in title only which is far too common. Any senior that uses their title to justify a 'you can't tell me way to do attitude, is a senior in title only.

I think the term is the issue. Senior development means something more intrinsic than it does in other title, like a senior manager. I think what we're attempting to define is something closer to seasoned developer.

[ilitirit]

> I think what we're attempting to define is something closer to seasoned developer.

I'm fully aware of that, which is why "Senior" is in double-quotes, but experienced (aka "seasoned") is not. My point is that you can be seasoned at delivering bad products. The point about seniority just speaks to tenure at a company. Sure, you can join a company as a "Senior dev", but that's not quite what I'm referring to here. One would think that they would be exposed during the interview process, but alas, we all know that's often not the case.

[YZF]

The title is more or less meaningless these days. That said the other problem is people can't always appreciate the perspective of a more seasoned developer. Some people who are very junior or intermediate think they know better since they don't have the experience. Lots of things in software come down to judgement/intuition and are not black and white. A lot of software development is about working with people and culture, not code.

[t43562]

The unseasoned developers are sometimes very keen on some idea, philosophy or method and are very intolerant of skepticism from someone who knows there is no such thing as perfection and no one way of solving all problems.