I see your point. And... I had to escalate to a very senior person of that sort (full stack, or full picture -- in detail) in order to get that particular prob

I see your point. And... I had to escalate to a very senior person of that sort (full stack, or full picture -- in detail) in order to get that particular problem paid attention to and resolved. (Such a perspective is also how I determined the problem in the first place -- which actually resulted from a botched fix to a prior problem that I'd identified.) However, despite the variance -- or risk of same -- that I described, in general we had some very capable and dedicated devops people who put a lot of effort and care into our environments. I get rather uncomfortable considering how things would have been had that not been the case. It's been a while, and maybe I'm mixing my stories a bit. But I left that role and product mix -- which had very significant security requirements and ramifications -- quite impressed with the role those devops folks played in keeping us safe. Perhaps what I meant by "strong" goes somewhat in the direction of your description of "full stack". Our senior devops people tended to trend in that direction. And we didn't have "turf wars". Instead, devops was a partner often throughout the development lifecycle. It helped make sure that the final destination was appropriate, safely, and consistently configured. (My "locale" situation aside; and in such an instance, the setting would subsequently receive heightened and sustained scrutiny, putting a curb on unintended variance of the setting as well as fixing the code that such variance would impact.) Strong in knowledge and ability, as opposed to simply or foremost in an authority to dictate.