4 ms·

Worth considering: why did the managers ignore the writer’s warning of the apocalypse when the system went live? One possibility that comes to mind is that the

• nine_zeros 3y ago
  > One possibility that comes to mind is that they’ve heard dire warnings before from other engineers which have turned out to be exaggerated. Tells me that management is incompetent. What exactly are they managing if they don't understand engineering estimation and consequences?
• jaggederest 3y ago
  When warnings are taken seriously, and no disaster happens: Clearly, the warnings were unnecessary. When warnings are not given and a disaster happens: clearly the team was incompetent and should have seen it coming. When warnings are not given or ignored and no disaster happens: they were overblown and pointless, why do we even have a disaster recovery team. When warnings are taken seriously and a disaster still happens: it's the worst of both worlds. You can't win in this situation. No combination of warning/not warning and disaster/no disaster results in success. If you can't trust your managers to cogently weigh the risks and costs, there's nothing you can do.
  • rgmerk 3y ago
    My point is that engineers sometimes view anything that goes wrong with their tiny corner of the system as a disaster, which is not always the case. My (engineering) boss is more risk-tolerant than I am, but after 30 years in the business I respect his judgement that a particular risk is worth running.