3 ms·

I think there should be a difference between a postmortem process and a performance management process and just because the first is blameless doesn’t mean that

I think there should be a difference between a postmortem process and a performance management process and just because the first is blameless doesn’t mean that the second can’t look back to find problems or negligence. That said, even when there is obvious negligence, having the postmortem process look at the issue with blamelessness is important to build up tooling/changes that could prevent it from happening again. For example, maybe you could revoke individuals having direct access to the production database without multi-party authentication.

SilasX 5y ago
>I think there should be a difference between a postmortem process and a performance management process and just because the first is blameless doesn’t mean that the second can’t look back to find problems or negligence. That doesn't make sense. The moment that you look back at a postmortem for use in penalizing someone via performance management, the postmortem is no longer blameless.
- tuckerman 5y ago
  You don’t look back at the postmortem, but if a manager says “you have repeatedly broken policy and, despite warnings, have logged into systems without permissions leading to incidents” I don’t think that’s a problem. It’s completely separate. Additionally, if someone is going up for promotion and uses a number of launches in their packet that all resulted in regressions and didn’t have good rollback plans, I don’t think the committee needs to be blind to that fact.