4 ms·
Not specifically about the article, but this applies to any X where you get a conclusion like: "Everyone owns X" For those who currently care about X and they
by lovemenot 5y ago
Not specifically about the article, but this applies to any X where you get a conclusion like: "Everyone owns X"
For those who currently care about X and they don't get enough support in their organisation, it makes perfect sense. For the rest, nothing needs to change. After all those other guys should have it.
The article issues hypothetical directives "Include all teams in testing", without any consideration as to what kind of activity might make this feasible. All teams simply reply "no thank you". And it's back to square one.
To be clear, I am not saying these suggestions are wrong. Just naive.
- WJW 5y agoYears ago I saw a talk by someone leading the "innovation department" of a large national police organization in the EU. Her main point: the quickest way to kill innovation (or reliability, or performance, etc) is to make a special team that "owns" that area. This is because it signals to the rest of the teams that it is not their problem anymore, because "after all SRE is responsible for reliability". On the other side of the spectrum, the main problem with "Everyone owns X" type initiatives is that often nobody gets measured on X but they do get measured on their other responsibilities. The predictable result is that all those smart and driven people you hired will realize that spending time on X will not get them promoted but neglecting it does not cost anything.