3 ms·

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? The same as in other regulated professions. It would give the people o

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? The same as in other regulated professions. It would give the people on the front line who can see the consequences of the corner cutting an effective right to say "No, we're not doing this user hostile thing". This would be a significant barrier because it wouldn't be legal to ship software without the required professional approval and the professionals would be heavily incentivised not to sign off any corner cutting because they would be personally and professionally responsible for any adverse consequences if they did.

groundzeros2015 1mo ago
That’s not how these systems work in reality. I’m actually an extreme pessimist. What actually happens is that you as an engineer become paid to frame the desired leadership goals in compliant terms. It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This skill among engineers is highly sought after in large companies with political organizations and greater encouraging it changes the composition of the workforce. Top civil engineers don’t design buildings.
- Silhouette 1mo ago
  In the physical engineering teams I've worked with the culture you just described is not what happens at all. There are always some people who seemingly live to circumvent the intention of rules lurking around the edges of regulated industries. But my own experience has been that real engineers very much value real engineering - it's often why they got into the field in the first place - and will push back hard against and if necessary refuse to sign off anything they consider inappropriate for the job. They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients.
  - disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
    > They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients. It really depends on the status of the profession in society and the company. I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach.
    - Silhouette 1mo ago
      I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach. No doubt. Imposing this kind of professional standards to regulate an industry as rich as tech would never work unless the penalties for cutting corners involved making the offending organisations significantly less rich very quickly. They would need to be taught a very clear lesson that hiring people pleasers had become an expensive mistake. As I commented elsewhere - the problem then becomes who gets to define what the proper path is. For example destroying companies because they chose not to follow the latest sage advice from anyone who once signed the Agile Manifesto does not seem like a good way to promote better quality software to me. And yet it seems highly likely that those are the kinds of people who would initially be engaged as "experts" by those seeking to establish the regulatory environment. I don't want people like them. I want the quiet, unassuming developer you've never heard of because they're the principal engineer of a team you've also never heard of that has been developing life saving medical equipment without a single significant failure in a live environment for the 15 years since their first device went into use at a local hospital. Get me those people to write the rules - starting with what is acceptable practice when developing software that really needs to work and letting the people who know how to achieve the most challenging results figure out how to tone everything down for applications where imperfections might be more acceptable - and then we can talk about whether regulating software development effectively is now a viable proposition.
      - 1mo ago
- disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
  > It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This is true, and basically what tends to happen is that if the Head of some compliance function (e.g. internal audit) is causing problems for the business, then they are replaced with someone who won't cause such problems. It's still better than nothing. Like, software basically runs our society now, so either software professionals get together on this, or regulations will be imposed on us, and they will be much worse than what we'd get in the first option.
  - groundzeros2015 1mo ago
    > It's still better than nothing. Once again the alternative is not nothing. The most important factor is that they are stakeholders in a project with influence. That is the reality right now, even without credentials.
    - disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
      > Once again the alternative is not nothing. Can you help me understand what the alternative is?
      - groundzeros2015 1mo ago
        Yes the framing above is “business people don’t listen to engineers but if they had a credential they would legally be forced to”. And I think both are false. The top engineers on a project are collaborators with leaders in other areas like marketing, sales, IT, legal, etc. And all those have influence on a project. A business person who says “fuck what my engineer says” is not a good leader and won’t have that group’s trust or support. They all want to work together. So by that process engineering has a seat of influence. That exists without credentials, and credentials are not what gets you in that seat. Reputation and experience are. Business leaders don’t do everything engineering says. They also don’t do everything the lawyers say! And having an additional legal backing would change some of these engineering conversation, but not fundamentally.

groundzeros2015 1mo ago

That’s not how these systems work in reality. I’m actually an extreme pessimist. What actually happens is that you as an engineer become paid to frame the desired leadership goals in compliant terms. It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This skill among engineers is highly sought after in large companies with political organizations and greater encouraging it changes the composition of the workforce. Top civil engineers don’t design buildings.

Silhouette 1mo ago
In the physical engineering teams I've worked with the culture you just described is not what happens at all. There are always some people who seemingly live to circumvent the intention of rules lurking around the edges of regulated industries. But my own experience has been that real engineers very much value real engineering - it's often why they got into the field in the first place - and will push back hard against and if necessary refuse to sign off anything they consider inappropriate for the job. They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients.
- disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
  > They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients. It really depends on the status of the profession in society and the company. I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach.
  - Silhouette 1mo ago
    I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach. No doubt. Imposing this kind of professional standards to regulate an industry as rich as tech would never work unless the penalties for cutting corners involved making the offending organisations significantly less rich very quickly. They would need to be taught a very clear lesson that hiring people pleasers had become an expensive mistake. As I commented elsewhere - the problem then becomes who gets to define what the proper path is. For example destroying companies because they chose not to follow the latest sage advice from anyone who once signed the Agile Manifesto does not seem like a good way to promote better quality software to me. And yet it seems highly likely that those are the kinds of people who would initially be engaged as "experts" by those seeking to establish the regulatory environment. I don't want people like them. I want the quiet, unassuming developer you've never heard of because they're the principal engineer of a team you've also never heard of that has been developing life saving medical equipment without a single significant failure in a live environment for the 15 years since their first device went into use at a local hospital. Get me those people to write the rules - starting with what is acceptable practice when developing software that really needs to work and letting the people who know how to achieve the most challenging results figure out how to tone everything down for applications where imperfections might be more acceptable - and then we can talk about whether regulating software development effectively is now a viable proposition.
    - 1mo ago
disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
> It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This is true, and basically what tends to happen is that if the Head of some compliance function (e.g. internal audit) is causing problems for the business, then they are replaced with someone who won't cause such problems. It's still better than nothing. Like, software basically runs our society now, so either software professionals get together on this, or regulations will be imposed on us, and they will be much worse than what we'd get in the first option.
- groundzeros2015 1mo ago
  > It's still better than nothing. Once again the alternative is not nothing. The most important factor is that they are stakeholders in a project with influence. That is the reality right now, even without credentials.
  - disgruntledphd2 1mo ago
    > Once again the alternative is not nothing. Can you help me understand what the alternative is?
    - groundzeros2015 1mo ago
      Yes the framing above is “business people don’t listen to engineers but if they had a credential they would legally be forced to”. And I think both are false. The top engineers on a project are collaborators with leaders in other areas like marketing, sales, IT, legal, etc. And all those have influence on a project. A business person who says “fuck what my engineer says” is not a good leader and won’t have that group’s trust or support. They all want to work together. So by that process engineering has a seat of influence. That exists without credentials, and credentials are not what gets you in that seat. Reputation and experience are. Business leaders don’t do everything engineering says. They also don’t do everything the lawyers say! And having an additional legal backing would change some of these engineering conversation, but not fundamentally.