3 ms·

Why? To any of this? If you aren't fixing/investigating the problem, why get in the way of the people who are on the basis of trust issues, or some ICs idea of

• mlrtime 3y ago
  How do you know you are getting in the way, how do you know the guy just didn't go out to lunch? How long do you wait to hear back, do you just wait forever? The scenario I have in my head is a conference, the person in the example has no video, no shared screen and no response. The 5 minutes is just an example, maybe a bad one but the idea still holds.
  • Chris2048 3y ago
    > how do you know the guy just didn't go out to lunch? You don't, you hire people you can trust, and with whom what is/isn't appropriate during an incident is clear. > How long do you wait to hear back, do you just wait forever? A short message "How's that going?" if it seems to be taking a long time and there is no communication. What you are describing is micromanaging the actions of the people who are meant to be experts in that domain. Why is this needed? What issues have arisen before, and do these issues arise during normal development. > person in the example It's not clear to me the role the people in the example have. What does being "primary investigator" mean? How does that relate to Ops - why isn't support, or the devs investigating the logs. Who in the example would be knowledgeable about this area? Is the Ops person qualified to know if a web log is strange? Why would they be pushing fixes to a web server? To me, if people in the know are competent enough to investigate an issue, they should be competent enough to communicate about it.