3 ms·
It’s not comparable. It’s both an institutional failure and an individual one. We know bugs and mistakes happen. If an organization has a QA or testing proce
by zepto 6y ago
It’s not comparable.
It’s both an institutional failure and an individual one.
We know bugs and mistakes happen.
If an organization has a QA or testing process and the code passed through the accepted processes and yet the still failed, we may not hold the engineer responsible.
If an engineer on the other hand, ships code which has not been tested, when a testing process exists, then we might well hold them responsible.
- madrox 6y agoMy understanding is that this story was run through the New York Times fact checking department. Is that not the equivalent of testing?
- zepto 6y agoIf that is what happened, then I agree. My understanding is that the fact checking department exists, and that Mills was told he didn’t need to do his own fact checking. But it wasn’t clear to me that the fact checking department did the fact checking. In this situation, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect Mills to be responsible for making sure the fact checking has been done before considering his work ready for publication even if he wasn’t the one doing it. Just like a release engineer may be responsible for making sure the release has been through QA.