3 ms·

It is not a good release time for the described scenario. The company badly needed a change to survive so fixing unrelated issues in the same change doesn't mak

• iLoveOncall 3y ago
  I could somewhat agree with that, however it seems like this only added a couple of hours out of the 6 days.
• icegreentea2 3y ago
  The problem (and solution) isn't necessarily to change the process. Assuming good faith and competence when designing the process, all (or similar) of the downsides encountered in the scenario were considered when designing the process, and the cost-benefit came out ahead to add the extra safeguards the layers. As demonstrated by the end of the scenario, the 'solution' was the president to more directly intervene. The failure in this scenario isn't necessarily that the process got in the way, it was that when the President and IT Director kicked off the action, they were not fully aware of the efforts and overrides required to escalate to 'do this now'. A converse failure is that the intent of the President and IT Director was not properly communicated to all stakeholders in the process.
• moralestapia 3y ago
  >The company badly needed a change to survive [...] Lol, nah. This is fiction, no company IRL is going to start laying off people after a few days of noticing a small dip in production. The whole premise of "We own this company but if this code change doesn't go through in X days we will fire people instead" is completely stupid. But it is an entertaining story and it gets the point through that internal bureaucracy gets in the way of many things.