In this model of "managers know what their reports are doing" how does one gain insight into overall engineering health from a high enough level (say, engineering manager / CTO)
How does a engineering manager know what their managers are up to in order to get an understanding of what their manager's team members are up to? Even worse if you have a large enough organisation where you may have managers managing leads who manage teams?
Mayhaps the CTO would deign to do their work and ask their direct reports about the status, then compile a report with the desired information? The direct reports would obviously ask their reports, and so forth, until you get to the lowest rung on the ladder.
I think it was in reference to the "possible tortious interference with Automatticc's contracts" and "We have screenshots and archives of all these tweets including when they were posted" messages in one of the screenshots.
You don't mention "contracts" or that you're putting things "on the record" on a whim.
In this context I would disagree... the "act" in question has allegedly already occurred, as such there is no way for the recipient of a "reminder" to make any changes to avoid a breach.
My disagreement in the previous comment had nothing to do with the alleged "threat" or the ethics of... it was the idea that it was simply a "reminder".
Actually it reads like someone with a tiktok level of legal knowledge trying to substatitate an empty and shallow threat - on a whim.
A proper (legal) threat takes the form of a piece of paper with a letterhead of some person who gets paid $5,000 an hour to make people question their life choices and shit their pants for a living.
It’s worse than that. They updated the schema, and tested it with previous data that does not exercise the new parameter. Tests are passing. When they go and actually use the new parameter, it crashes.
The new schema was improperly tested (among a list of other failures).
> When I make a change to some code or config, I'll run it locally to make sure that the change has the effect that I want.
It's not uncommon for devs to be working against outdated databases / config dumps. Certainly bad practice but when devs have the option of being lazy vs doing chores, they will pick the path of less resistance.
> But what I can't understand is that the human who initiated this change decided not to see if it actually did what they wanted it to do.
We're assuming that the person who changed the code also made the choice to initiate the rollout. They are 2 separate actions which can be made by separate individuals and could also involve many multiple steps in between, each undertaken by a separate individual as well.
Distance from Prod does introduce a sense of malaise and complacency, I've found.
It's really hard to assign blame, but I'd put more blame on Team 2 for not being defensive with their inputs enough.
As we all know there are greater issues with their deployment pipelines (lack of canaries, phased rollouts etc.) but no point going over those in this context.
reply