6 ms·

This would change almost nothing in the current scenario. Companies still have in-house legal teams, who are trained lawyers and I'd argue they are still 'subor

by amirmc 12y ago

This would change almost nothing in the current scenario. Companies still have in-house legal teams, who are trained lawyers and I'd argue they are still 'subordinate' to whoever their managers are. Given the number of startups that regularly skirt the edges of the law it's obvious that many founders don't pay heed to legal advice either (or even seek it out) [1]. Why should it be any different if engineering was more 'professionalised'? [1] I'm not making any judgements about this, simply stating that it happens.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
> This would change almost nothing in the current scenario. Companies still have in-house legal teams, who are trained lawyers and I'd argue they are still 'subordinate' to whoever their managers are. I have no idea what your scare quotes mean, so I'll pretend I didn't see them. What you describe may be yet another problem of subordinacy, but there is a difference: when you get legal advice, it's not binding. You may chose not to follow it. But only engineers can build a bridge. That gives them a limited veto power. In the current scenario, there are several steps. First, the lawyers says how much the different kind of litigations cost. Second, the boss (or some other manager) works out which costs more: letting people die, or fixing the lethal stuff. Finally, there's the engineer, which either fixes the damn thing, or does not. This suggests at least two angles of attack. First we could increase the cost of death for companies. Second, we could held specific people personally accountable. Either the manager for trading lives for money, or the engineer for implementing that trade off. Now, as another commenter warned about, we should be careful about not freezing innovation in the process. At this point, the problem is so hairy I have no idea what's best.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  The quote marks around 'subordinate', to me, are intended to indicate that the status that the relationship entails on the surface does not hold where it matters. The lawyers are not really subordinate to the managers and are able to extract more value from management than the managers are able to extract from the lawyers. If this dynamic persists long enough, then, like the Janissaries of Ottoman fame, the subordinates eventually find themselves the masters.

by amirmc 12y ago

loup-vaillant 12y ago

> This would change almost nothing in the current scenario. Companies still have in-house legal teams, who are trained lawyers and I'd argue they are still 'subordinate' to whoever their managers are. I have no idea what your scare quotes mean, so I'll pretend I didn't see them. What you describe may be yet another problem of subordinacy, but there is a difference: when you get legal advice, it's not binding. You may chose not to follow it. But only engineers can build a bridge. That gives them a limited veto power. In the current scenario, there are several steps. First, the lawyers says how much the different kind of litigations cost. Second, the boss (or some other manager) works out which costs more: letting people die, or fixing the lethal stuff. Finally, there's the engineer, which either fixes the damn thing, or does not. This suggests at least two angles of attack. First we could increase the cost of death for companies. Second, we could held specific people personally accountable. Either the manager for trading lives for money, or the engineer for implementing that trade off. Now, as another commenter warned about, we should be careful about not freezing innovation in the process. At this point, the problem is so hairy I have no idea what's best.

vinceguidry 12y ago
The quote marks around 'subordinate', to me, are intended to indicate that the status that the relationship entails on the surface does not hold where it matters. The lawyers are not really subordinate to the managers and are able to extract more value from management than the managers are able to extract from the lawyers. If this dynamic persists long enough, then, like the Janissaries of Ottoman fame, the subordinates eventually find themselves the masters.