2 ms·

I think that's a reason, but not the reason. There have been times where I've advocated shift left because the people to the right were less expert on their ow

by jghn 3y ago

I think that's a reason, but not the reason. There have been times where I've advocated shift left because the people to the right were less expert on their own topics than the people on the left. So why not just cut out the downstream churn. For roles like QA, Ops, Infosec I've found that the good ones are so much harder to find than good developers. And when you find those good ones, they're worth their weight in gold. But because they, especially QA & ops, tend to be viewed as lower on the hierarchy they often have lesser talent filling the ranks. Sometimes the entire group will be like this. And at that point, why even bother?

lsofzz 3y ago
> For roles like QA, Ops, Infosec I've found that the good ones are so much harder to find than good developers. And when you find those good ones, they're worth their weight in gold. I agree to that 100%. This is why I keep sounding like a broken record to young devs.
lsofzz 3y ago
> But because they, especially QA & ops, tend to be viewed as lower on the hierarchy they often have lesser talent filling the ranks. Geez ever wondered why? It is partly due to the "monkey" work that's required. I feel the "ops" world needs a heavy reset (may sound like broken record again: eliminate toil, eliminate side-effects, chicken/egg problems, test? what test? etc..). Geez and I wonder why positions at "FANG" like places require software engineers to fill in the ops work - the engineers, the thinkers and the leaders at these companies understood pretty early on the importance of "engineering" applied to these "ops" and "qa" disciplines.
- jghn 3y ago
  That's kind of my point when I brought up the good ones being worth their weight in gold. It doesn't need to be all toil. But companies often view these roles as toil and thus they don't want to spend much money on it. Which means they get the bad ones. Which means it's all toil. And the cycle perpetuates. In contrast, the high end people I've come across in QA, Ops, Infosec, etc. They were not only *expert* in their domain but better devs than most of the devs. In other words, the dynamic was the opposite from what I first described. And of course those people are really freaking expensive. Again, the cycle perpetuates.

by jghn 3y ago

lsofzz 3y ago

> For roles like QA, Ops, Infosec I've found that the good ones are so much harder to find than good developers. And when you find those good ones, they're worth their weight in gold. I agree to that 100%. This is why I keep sounding like a broken record to young devs.

lsofzz 3y ago

> But because they, especially QA & ops, tend to be viewed as lower on the hierarchy they often have lesser talent filling the ranks. Geez ever wondered why? It is partly due to the "monkey" work that's required. I feel the "ops" world needs a heavy reset (may sound like broken record again: eliminate toil, eliminate side-effects, chicken/egg problems, test? what test? etc..). Geez and I wonder why positions at "FANG" like places require software engineers to fill in the ops work - the engineers, the thinkers and the leaders at these companies understood pretty early on the importance of "engineering" applied to these "ops" and "qa" disciplines.

jghn 3y ago
That's kind of my point when I brought up the good ones being worth their weight in gold. It doesn't need to be all toil. But companies often view these roles as toil and thus they don't want to spend much money on it. Which means they get the bad ones. Which means it's all toil. And the cycle perpetuates. In contrast, the high end people I've come across in QA, Ops, Infosec, etc. They were not only *expert* in their domain but better devs than most of the devs. In other words, the dynamic was the opposite from what I first described. And of course those people are really freaking expensive. Again, the cycle perpetuates.