3 ms·
> They're often avoidable. Avoidance isn't the goal of mgmt though. Cost minimization is, and by quantizing the compensation portion it can help figure out the
by maerF0x0 4y ago
> They're often avoidable.
Avoidance isn't the goal of mgmt though. Cost minimization is, and by quantizing the compensation portion it can help figure out the cost of a bug. Ultimately the cost of a bug is a key variable in the decision to prevent or solve.
The cost can easily vary from $0 (eg at a startup with no customers) or to millions (maybe billions?) when you consider the risk of brand damage, lost ARR (multiply that ARR by the sales multiple!), decremented velocity (lost opportunity value), and eventually even recruiting cost (to replace frustrated employees).
I've always wanted to work at a JoelTest[1] company which fixes bugs before writing new code... But the closest i've found is a commitment that the oncall engineer works on bugs for their rotation to reduce the bug backlog ( and is not part of sprint velocity)
[1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...
- scottlamb 4y ago> Avoidance isn't the goal of mgmt though. Management's goals are easier to achieve when they can employ excellent engineers. As I explained, I don't want to work somewhere heroics are often needed. I'm not alone. That's a factor they need to consider, in addition to the customer impact of the outages themselves.
- sam0x17 4y agoEven at a startup with zero customers the cost of a bug is non-zero if you plan to allocate dev time to it or you have to fix it to be able to launch.
- throw0101a 4y ago> Avoidance isn't the goal of mgmt though. Cost minimization is […] How about (net) value creation? Whose goal is that? Minimize costs all you want, but if your service is garbage you won't be getting (as) much income either.