• Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Many people need to shift away from this blaming mindset and think about systems that prevent these things from happening. I doubt anyone at CrowdStrike desired to ground airlines and disrupt emergency systems. No one will prevent incidents like this by finding scapegoats.

    • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      That means spending time and money on developing such a system, which means increasing costs in the short term… which is kryptonite for current-day CEOs

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Right. More than money, I say it’s about incentives. You might change the entire C-suite, management, and engineering teams, but if the incentives remain the same (e.g. developers are evaluated by number of commits), the new staff is bound to make the same mistakes.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I strongly believe in no-blame mindsets, but “blame” is not the same as “consequences” and lack of consequences is definitely the biggest driver of corporate apathy. Every incident should trigger a review of systemic and process failures, but in my experience corporate leadership either sucks at this, does not care, or will bury suggestions that involve spending man-hours on a complex solution if the problem lies in that “low likelihood, big impact” corner.
      Because likely when the problem happens (again) they’ll be able to sweep it under the rug (again) or will have moved on to greener pastures.

      What the author of the article suggests is actually a potential fix; if developers (in a broad sense of the word and including POs and such) were accountable (both responsible and empowered) then they would have the power to say No to shortsighted management decisions (and/or deflect the blame in a way that would actually stick to whoever went against an engineer’s recommendation).