3 ms·
You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers. It doesn’t.
by p_ing 8mo ago
You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers.
It doesn’t.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- AlienRobot 8mo agoBut if there are no gates, doesn't that mean the people who should have put the gates in there screwed up?
- p_ing 8mo agoThere is no singular publishing org at MSFT. Each product publishes its own docs, generally following a style guide. But the doc process is up to the doc owner(s).
- dxdm 8mo agoI think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
- p_ing 8mo agoWhat? This is how it works. There are too many people here like the op that make assumptions on what the process is/should be.
- anonymous908213 8mo agoThere is no such thing as "making an assumption" on what a process "should be". I am asserting what it should be. A multi-trillion dollar company should absolutely have a robust review process in place. If one single person can submit plagiarised and defective material onto an official platform that implicates the company as a whole in copyright infringement, management has failed, ergo multiple people have failed, ergo the failure is systemic. It is extremely well-known that individual humans make mistakes. Therefore, any well-functioning system has guards in place to catch mistakes, such that it takes multiple people making mistakes for an individual mistake to cascade to system failure. A system that does not have these guards in place at all, and allows one individual's failure to immediately become a system failure, is a bad system, and management staff who implement bad systems are as responsible for their failure as the individual who made the mistake. Let us be grateful that you do not work in an engineering or aviation capacity, given the great lengths you are going to defend the "correctness" of a bad system.
- dxdm 8mo agoMy dog does this thing where she picks a stick and gets you to pull on it, and she will pull on her end, too. She gets very focused on it. Pulling on the stick is the most important thing to her in that moment, when in fact it's just a stick she chose to turn into this tug of war. That's not entirely unlike what you're doing here. You latched onto a misunderstanding of OP's intent, and by making a thing out of it got people to pull back, and now you also keep tugging on your end. Except she does it on purpose and enjoys it, while I think you did it inadvertently and you do not seem that happy. But then, you're not a dog, of course. You could stop pulling on the stick. I do enjoy these doggy similes, though. :)
- arduanika 8mo agoThis is a perfect description. I've probably been the dog at some point. p_ing, see my nearby comment about what we mean by "multiple". Does that comment make any false "assumptions"? Or, is it you who are mistaken, persistently failing to understand what your interlocutors are saying?
- dxdm 8mo agoIt can be hard to resist.
- GrinningFool 8mo agoThat seems to further make the case that it's a systemic problem. The organization would have more guardrails in place if it prioritized "don't break things" over "move fast".
- ryandrake 8mo agoThere have been no Gates at Microsoft for a long time.
- arduanika 8mo ago[flagged]