5 ms·

I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work, which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours, and understanding the tooling a

I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work, which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours, and understanding the tooling and instrumentation required to keep their work healthy. However, hiring people and not telling them this is part of the job is insanely unfair. People should get paid for being on-call. Further still, if something is going to wake me up during the night, I would expect to be able to work on those problems as a priority. If I can't do that, then no dice, and thus this further explains why I don't really agree that Devs should be able to throw code over the wall at Ops, and ruin their lives whilst they sleep easy and priortise features over stability.

Hendrikto 8y ago
> I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work Definitely > which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours Definitely not
- Verdex_3 8y ago
  Division of labor is a thing. I'm good at transforming customer interactions into requirements and then transforming requirements into working code. I'm not good with dealing with issues with a deployed product while I should be busy living my life.
  - re-actor 8y ago
    So push the burden onto somebody else? Why aren't they allowed to "be busying living [their] life"?
    - Verdex_3 8y ago
      They should be free to live their life. If it turns out that the company doesn't actually have enough money to hire enough people to perform all of the duties that it needs to continue to exist, then that company should cease to exist. Which is desirable over the alternative of having rich company owners externalize their failure to run their company adequately by stealing the lives of employees who don't have the ability to say no to an unethical violation of their right to live their life.
      - illiac_1962 8y ago
        Spot on. I ended up with a new boss at a new company through an acquisition. He gently asked about me getting on the on-call rotation. Which meant work 24/7 because the company didn't know how to manage technology. I enthusiastically agreed and gave him a big spiel about how this is expected, yada, I'm a team player, yada. I fucking parachuted immediately and gave one day notice.
      - jasonlotito 8y ago
        > They should be free to live their life. How does an on-call rotation prevent this?
        MereInterest 8y ago
        Depends entirely on the on-call rotation. I've been on one where you could go the entire week without being paged, and where most of the pages did not require an immediate response. That did not prevent me from living my life. I've been on another where there were several pages every day, at all hours of the day, each of which could take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. That one certainly prevented me from living my life.
  - ownagefool 8y ago
    So then you should probably only work on products that don't require out of hours support, or where the team is willing and able to hire people in another time zone. Instead, you think some ops guy should do it?
    - u801e 8y ago
      Perhaps the company should invest the resources into hiring people to provide out of hours support rather than expecting their employees to be on call 24/7 for certain weeks of the month. Otherwise, why shouldthe company bother offering out of hours support if it's not willing to pay for it.
      - ownagefool 8y ago
        Indeed, companys should pay what's required, but it's not really the point I'm making. End of the day, an Ops guy who is not part of the development team can't really do all that much when a bad commit brings down the system. Sure, we can take a stab in the dark and roll-back, but we don't know if that's going to make the problem worse, or we can restart it but that's about the easiest thing in the world to automate. So, why not get the experts of the system, who rolled out the change, and undertook the quality control, to be part of the team that fixes the outage (irregadless of what time we do it at)? Who is better suited?
- web007 8y ago
  Why not? Where does that responsibility end?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - code_beers 8y ago
    Why not? Because I’m paid for 40 hours, and I work 40 hours. Why aren’t mechanics pulled in at 2am to perform warranty work, if they originally fixed the car? Same reason, that would be ridiculous. Where does the responsibility end? At me doing the best job possible under the circumstances, all that could be expected of a human being.
patatino 8y ago
> I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work, which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours Do you think the same about your previous jobs? If they find a bug you wrote you should come in and fix it?
- ownagefool 8y ago
  Bit of a straw man, but I imagine products that need 24/7 support would have more than a single owner and would be doing some sort of code review, thus it's not about you being on-call for eternity, just that you should be involved in the process of supporting code so that you write code that is supportable.
adetrest 8y ago
Where it breaks down is when you add a developer are forced to write and deploy shitty code. You know it's broken, told the PO/PM/whoever is in charge, and they refused to listen. Or when new features are more important than fixing bugs.
- Verdex_3 8y ago
  Hear hear. Give me actual autonomy and I'll happily be responsible for my code. Make me implement a crappy design and then deploy before it's functional and I'll happily send out resumes while other people work nights and weekends trying to fix garbage that was never going to work in the first place.
- ownagefool 8y ago
  One tactic I've used in the past is requiring the PO to be on the calls, otherwise I won't be. However, ultimatly if you work for someone who doesn't care about your quality of live, you should probably move on.

Hendrikto 8y ago

> I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work Definitely > which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours Definitely not

Verdex_3 8y ago
Division of labor is a thing. I'm good at transforming customer interactions into requirements and then transforming requirements into working code. I'm not good with dealing with issues with a deployed product while I should be busy living my life.
- re-actor 8y ago
  So push the burden onto somebody else? Why aren't they allowed to "be busying living [their] life"?
  - Verdex_3 8y ago
    They should be free to live their life. If it turns out that the company doesn't actually have enough money to hire enough people to perform all of the duties that it needs to continue to exist, then that company should cease to exist. Which is desirable over the alternative of having rich company owners externalize their failure to run their company adequately by stealing the lives of employees who don't have the ability to say no to an unethical violation of their right to live their life.
    - illiac_1962 8y ago
      Spot on. I ended up with a new boss at a new company through an acquisition. He gently asked about me getting on the on-call rotation. Which meant work 24/7 because the company didn't know how to manage technology. I enthusiastically agreed and gave him a big spiel about how this is expected, yada, I'm a team player, yada. I fucking parachuted immediately and gave one day notice.
    - jasonlotito 8y ago
      > They should be free to live their life. How does an on-call rotation prevent this?
      - MereInterest 8y ago
        Depends entirely on the on-call rotation. I've been on one where you could go the entire week without being paged, and where most of the pages did not require an immediate response. That did not prevent me from living my life. I've been on another where there were several pages every day, at all hours of the day, each of which could take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. That one certainly prevented me from living my life.
- ownagefool 8y ago
  So then you should probably only work on products that don't require out of hours support, or where the team is willing and able to hire people in another time zone. Instead, you think some ops guy should do it?
  - u801e 8y ago
    Perhaps the company should invest the resources into hiring people to provide out of hours support rather than expecting their employees to be on call 24/7 for certain weeks of the month. Otherwise, why shouldthe company bother offering out of hours support if it's not willing to pay for it.
    - ownagefool 8y ago
      Indeed, companys should pay what's required, but it's not really the point I'm making. End of the day, an Ops guy who is not part of the development team can't really do all that much when a bad commit brings down the system. Sure, we can take a stab in the dark and roll-back, but we don't know if that's going to make the problem worse, or we can restart it but that's about the easiest thing in the world to automate. So, why not get the experts of the system, who rolled out the change, and undertook the quality control, to be part of the team that fixes the outage (irregadless of what time we do it at)? Who is better suited?
web007 8y ago
Why not? Where does that responsibility end?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- code_beers 8y ago
  Why not? Because I’m paid for 40 hours, and I work 40 hours. Why aren’t mechanics pulled in at 2am to perform warranty work, if they originally fixed the car? Same reason, that would be ridiculous. Where does the responsibility end? At me doing the best job possible under the circumstances, all that could be expected of a human being.

patatino 8y ago

> I largely believe developers should be responsible for their work, which includes meeting the support requirements out of hours Do you think the same about your previous jobs? If they find a bug you wrote you should come in and fix it?

ownagefool 8y ago
Bit of a straw man, but I imagine products that need 24/7 support would have more than a single owner and would be doing some sort of code review, thus it's not about you being on-call for eternity, just that you should be involved in the process of supporting code so that you write code that is supportable.

adetrest 8y ago

Where it breaks down is when you add a developer are forced to write and deploy shitty code. You know it's broken, told the PO/PM/whoever is in charge, and they refused to listen. Or when new features are more important than fixing bugs.

Verdex_3 8y ago
Hear hear. Give me actual autonomy and I'll happily be responsible for my code. Make me implement a crappy design and then deploy before it's functional and I'll happily send out resumes while other people work nights and weekends trying to fix garbage that was never going to work in the first place.
ownagefool 8y ago
One tactic I've used in the past is requiring the PO to be on the calls, otherwise I won't be. However, ultimatly if you work for someone who doesn't care about your quality of live, you should probably move on.