3 ms·
Not disagreeing, but I'm assuming they did it this way because they wanted some quick and objective way to make the cuts. Given those priorities, what's the bes
by bitshiftfaced 4y ago
Not disagreeing, but I'm assuming they did it this way because they wanted some quick and objective way to make the cuts. Given those priorities, what's the best way to accomplish that?
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoThis is not an objective way. You will fire most valuable people (those who knows how stuff works) and you will keep junior grunts who type code by what seniors tells them. Correct approach would be understand why there are so many people, figure out what is their job and then start removing those who are deemed unnecessary. i.e. Imagine that you would come to new codebase and start throwing out code which does not appears to do anything and then be surprised that it is not possible to compile or you can't deploy or whole application will start crashing at random intervals.
- zastrowm 4y agoIt may not be the correct way or a smart way, but it is objective - the metric being used cannot be interpreted one way or another, it's just LOC.
- kaba0 4y agoWell, it is likely stupid to make the cuts? Engineering talent is hard to find and would have been much easier to retain.
- plorkyeran 4y agoPicking people entirely at random would be better than picking them based on a nonsensical metric.