Comment by fmakunbound
3 years ago
> We can’t even push to a git repo unless it has a linked work item/story/task/bug
Exactly the same where I work. The pace of getting things done is absolutely glacial compared to what you know you could achieve if you had any agency. I think the only reason this organization I'm temporarily a part of can even compete is that all its competitors must be equally inefficient.
But when something major breaks, and the answer to the question of "why?" is ... "well, I just thought i'd make that change, but nobody asked for it" what happens then?
I wouldn't want to be accountable in that situation.
Every change carries risk.
And what if the same major thing breaks but you were asked to do it? Your necks on the line and you did something wrong that you were asked to do correctly. The problem is that part of current micromanagement environments isn't just about micromanagement but also passing down risk and responsibility to developers.
You can do the change work in a feature branch and propose the idea after the fact. If there's interest "I've already done it." Stakeholders get a bit of instant gratification like their request just materialized into thin air. If they're not interested, don't mention it and let the work go unused, rack it up as professional development time and work.
I do this fairly often. If a decision has a bunch of real risk associated with it I make sure to get sign off and create an appropriate evidence trail to pass risk back up when it's passed down. Much of work is just passing risk and liability around to PYA.
Because if you're asked to do something, someone has presumably thought it through and accepted the risk to the business/client.
I'm not sure I'd keep someone on the team who did a branch AWOL and proposed the idea after the fact. Doesn't show much respect for the team, that time could've been spent working towards goals agreed by the whole team.
If you don't have a lead or management environment with ears open to exploratory change, tech debt payoff or "do it better" tasks or whatever... and you have to manage up so much... that sounds like an issue to me.
5 replies →
Why is it any better if someone further removed from the change is accountable instead? Major breaks shouldn't be avoided by avoiding change, They should be avoided by having strong QA process & support - it shouldn't be a single-person accountability.