| Usually it is good to have second side of story. We can not, so, let me be the devil's advocate. >There have been numerous technical arguments where it is all of the other engineers against the lead, which go nowhere. If you can not convince lead, may be it is not her fault? >The code the lead has written is also atrocious It is hard to agree on quality of code between several programmers. It is easy to agree on quality of OTHER guy's code. Two biases in-place here: - You work only on problem code, not well-functioning one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error >, and if I didn't know better I would say it is actively malicious (in terms of nobody else is able to maintain it). Skill you lack - handling problem code >However, the non-technical side of the company is very frustrated with how often everything breaks This is a real problem, here I can not indulge her >I am trying to fix things but the codebase is not in a great condition and the lead has no interest in making it better. No interest or no resources? > Non-technical folks have talked to me about just doing a rewrite, since there really isn't much code, but the lead will not even consider the idea. Joel calls it "single worst strategic mistake" in https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... Code amount is not a good characteristic of system complexity. May be buisness people underestimate amout of effort required. (Edit):Fixed EOLs |