4 ms·
> 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? I
by 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 agoThat'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.