Comment by pjc50
1 year ago
I'm guessing these are related. If every team is potentially responsible for breakages in every product, there's no such thing as a "just chugging along" product and there will be a constant demand to delete products that are not popular within Google.
It has nothing to do with popularity, it has everything to do with teams doing what get them promoted and not having to deal with cross org fallout.
At Microsoft, if there were 12 teams depending on service foo, the team who owned foo had to have a deprecation plan that included sufficient time and support for all 12 teams to get off foo, and directors/VPs would meet and come to terms before the deprecation started.
Google is the opposite. Despite an increasing trend towards top-down direction there's no requirement or support for involving stakeholders. There can be internal products (let's say a data storage solution) and the team who owns it can say "we don't care about this anymore, it's being shut down in 6 months" even if dozens of other teams and millions of end users rely on it, and it's up to those teams to scramble, put other projects on hold, and try to migrate as fast as possible to avoid an outage.
It's frankly demotivating. For the last 18 months, a huge percentage of eng time on my team has gone to either compliance or mandatory migration work i.e. stuff that ABSOLUTE BEST CASE customers don't notice.