2 ms·

At some point you have to blame the person. If the person did it wilfully, deliberately, ignoring the checks and safeguards. Or because there's already so much

At some point you have to blame the person. If the person did it wilfully, deliberately, ignoring the checks and safeguards. Or because there's already so much system that having any more of it would place severe restrictions on everyday tasks. I'm not saying that's the case here, because it does seem that GitLab has systemic deficiencies. But "never" and "always" are such strong statements. Prosecutor: Mr. Accused, here is evidence that you murdered that other person. Accused: It's not my fault, but the systems'. Judge: Oh, ok. You are a free man.

DanHulton 10y ago
The law and a "no fault" postmortem are entirely different things and you conflating the two doesn't help the discussion. Let's assume a bad actor in a company. It still doesn't help improve the situation to allow blame to rest with the bad actor. Definitely, there should be penalties applied (likely the termination of their position), but it doesn't help your company at all to stop there. Did they delete data? Why is there no secure backup system in place to recover that data? Why was there such lax security in place to allow them to delete the data in the first place? Why are we hiring people who will go rogue and delete data? Did they "turn" after working here for a while because of toxic culture, processes, etc? Hell, if the law worked this way, we might actually have less crime because we'd look further into the causes of crime and work to address them instead of simply punishing the offenders.