3 ms·
> No-blame analysis is a much better pattern. Everyone wins. It's about building the system that builds the system. Stuff broke; fix the stuff that broke, then
by insaneirish 5y ago
> No-blame analysis is a much better pattern. Everyone wins. It's about building the system that builds the system. Stuff broke; fix the stuff that broke, then fix the things that let stuff break.
Yea, except it doesn't work in practice. I work with a lot of people who come from places with "blameless" post-mortem 'culture' and they've evangelized such a thing extensively.
You know what all those people have proven themselves to really excel at? Blaming people.
- kortex 5y agoOk, and? I don't doubt it fails in places. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work in practice. Our company does it just fine. We have a high trust, high transparency system and it's wonderful. It's like saying unit tests don't work in practice because bugs got through.
- kortilla 5y agoHave you ever considered that the “no-blame” postmortems you are giving credit for everything are just a side effect of living in a high trust, high transparency system? In other words, “no-blame” should be an emergent property of a culture of trust. It’s not something you can prescribe.
- kortex 5y agoYes, exactly. Culture of trust is the root. Many beneficial patterns emerge when you can have that: more critical PRs, blameless post-mortems, etc.