4 ms·

That's awesome, but why publicize it? This isn't an act of contrition for you, no one outside your team really needs to see your dirty laundry, and actually com

That's awesome, but why publicize it? This isn't an act of contrition for you, no one outside your team really needs to see your dirty laundry, and actually comes off as unprofessional to me. The gitlab team is a team, and you take responsibility as a team. Placing names and initials in the liveblog makes it look like SOMEONE is trying to assign and pass off blame, even if that is not what is happening. Presumably in the coming days there will be a number of team meetings where you discover what went wrong, and what the action items are for everyone moving forward. The public looking info just needs to say what went wrong, how it is being fixed, and what will be done in the future to prevent it from happening again. I don't need names to get that.

Shank 10y ago
There are quite a few comments on this very thread about how this creates trust, not ruins it. Thinking that there's a "right" and a "wrong" way (or an "unprofessional"/"dirty laundry" situation) is quite contrarian to the Gitlab transparency model and their culture. If you don't like their culture, don't work there.
cjbprime 10y ago
You're assuming the only reason for wanting to do it would be as contrition, but it sounds like that's not the reason here. Possibly the GitLab team cares about transparency to the extent that they simply prefer to be transparent.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  It's not transparent to name people; it's unnecessary and betrays a misunderstanding of how to handle an incident.
omouse 10y ago
On the contrary, it comes off as very professional. All other companies would hide this, they would show off a very cleaned up post-mortem and say "problem solved" and that's it. Ok so what does that mean, does it mean the process will change for the future or that they just fixed it for today? This is also an awesome advert to see how they work remotely all together and I'm sure they're hiring for DevOps people now ;)
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Naming individuals is not professional. Even allowing it with permission does not set a good standard for operation.
- riralk 10y ago
  I agree the transparency was probably appreciated by most users. I also think the human factor should be considered not just the technical aspect. Here's my take on the issue... https://forgetfulprogrammer.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/key-learning-from-the-gitlab-incident/ https://forgetfulprogrammer.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/key-lea...
mastre_ 10y ago
IMO the idea of secrecy equating to professionalism is _the_ problem with many things. "Information wants to be free." It's also more personable, especially to those who use their product - to me, it shows they're on top of it, they care and are taking responsibility. Gives you a sense like you're part of the team (or they part of yours).
- scaryclam 10y ago
  Keeping names out of incident reports isn't about secrecy. There's nothing stopping the folks at Gitlab posting up a retrospective blog post. Incident reports are formal documents published to let users and customers know what's going on. The names can come later, if all parties are OK with it.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    And they initially put in only initials and the developer posted in this thread only after it was published.

Shank 10y ago

There are quite a few comments on this very thread about how this creates trust, not ruins it. Thinking that there's a "right" and a "wrong" way (or an "unprofessional"/"dirty laundry" situation) is quite contrarian to the Gitlab transparency model and their culture. If you don't like their culture, don't work there.

cjbprime 10y ago

You're assuming the only reason for wanting to do it would be as contrition, but it sounds like that's not the reason here. Possibly the GitLab team cares about transparency to the extent that they simply prefer to be transparent.

throwaway91111 10y ago
It's not transparent to name people; it's unnecessary and betrays a misunderstanding of how to handle an incident.

omouse 10y ago

On the contrary, it comes off as very professional. All other companies would hide this, they would show off a very cleaned up post-mortem and say "problem solved" and that's it. Ok so what does that mean, does it mean the process will change for the future or that they just fixed it for today? This is also an awesome advert to see how they work remotely all together and I'm sure they're hiring for DevOps people now ;)

throwaway91111 10y ago
Naming individuals is not professional. Even allowing it with permission does not set a good standard for operation.
riralk 10y ago
I agree the transparency was probably appreciated by most users. I also think the human factor should be considered not just the technical aspect. Here's my take on the issue... https://forgetfulprogrammer.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/key-learning-from-the-gitlab-incident/ https://forgetfulprogrammer.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/key-lea...

mastre_ 10y ago

IMO the idea of secrecy equating to professionalism is _the_ problem with many things. "Information wants to be free." It's also more personable, especially to those who use their product - to me, it shows they're on top of it, they care and are taking responsibility. Gives you a sense like you're part of the team (or they part of yours).

scaryclam 10y ago
Keeping names out of incident reports isn't about secrecy. There's nothing stopping the folks at Gitlab posting up a retrospective blog post. Incident reports are formal documents published to let users and customers know what's going on. The names can come later, if all parties are OK with it.
- yuhong 10y ago
  And they initially put in only initials and the developer posted in this thread only after it was published.