4 ms·
I was not informed of his performance reviews. However, given the reception, his work in general, and the attitudes of the team, I cannot imagine this even came
by azinman2 5y ago
I was not informed of his performance reviews. However, given the reception, his work in general, and the attitudes of the team, I cannot imagine this even came up. More likely the ability to improve routing to actually make YouTube cheaper in the end was I'm sure the ultimate positive result.
This was also towards the end of the golden age of Google, when the percentage of top talent was a lot higher.
- wolverine876 5y agoSo on what basis is someone's performance reviewed, if such performance is omitted?
- xmprt 5y agoI'll play devil's advocate here and say that sometimes these incidents deserve praise because they uncovered an issue that was otherwise unknown previously. Also if the incident had a large negative impact then it shows to leadership how critical normal operation of that service is. Even if you were the cause of the issue, the fact that you fixed it and kept the critical service operating the rest of the time, is worth something good.
- wolverine876 5y agoI know; that's not what I'm asking about. I'm talking about a different issue.
- yebyen 5y agoMistakes happen, and a culture that insists too hard that "mistakes shouldn't happen, and so we can't be seen making mistakes" is harmful toward engineering. How should their performance be evaluated, if not by the rote number of mistakes that can be pinned onto the person, and their combined impact? (Was that the question?)
- marcan_42 5y agoThe entire point of blameless postmortems is acknowledging that the mere existence of an outage does not inherently reflect on the performance of the people involved. This allows you to instead focus on building resilient systems that avoid the possibility of accidental outages in the first place.
- wolverine876 5y agoI know. That's not what I'm asking about, if you might read my question.