[mrweasel]

We're reaching a point where two groups of people, rather than one, is required to wake up in the middle of the night. Previously just the operations people needed to get up, now developers need to be on-call as well.

Operations teams are scaling down their monitoring to just infrastructure, because the applications are more opaque than ever. Incidents at the application level are no longer fixable by Ops, because they have no idea what the developers deployed or how it's configured.

Developers now need to take responsibility for application monitoring, patch management and incident management. Meaning that we're shifting more work to a group of people that where already in short supply.

I don't think we're necessarily moving in the right direction. There's certainly benefits to development and operations working in tandem, but currently we're just moving operations to developers without much consideration for the people that needs to do the actual work.

In my opinion your company/solution needs to be somewhat limited for "DevOps" to make sense. For everyone else, it's two separate roles.

[ownagefool]

Yes and no.

Realstically, if the platform isn't down, I wouldn't need to wake up my platform engineer, just the dev. But the point is, the dev should build more reliable software so they don't have to wake up.

However, you're right, often these are two different teams. There are some people that can do both, but they're few and far between.

[klodolph]

I would say that the problem in this situation is hard to avoid. If you can have an operations team who are experts on the application as well, and have the team more closely integrated with the development team, then you generally don’t need to wake up developers at night. I spent a few years on a team set up like this and it worked very well. If your project isn’t big enough for its own operation team you can share a team between a few different projects.

But I don’t think it’s necessarily that much harder to hire developers than it is to hire devops. Some managers have told me that hiring for devops is harder.

And developers should feel some of the pain—I’m not saying page them in the middle of the night, but they should be doing daytime on-call rotations. This helps align incentives and makes developers aware of reliability issues in the systems that they create.

> In my opinion your company/solution needs to be somewhat limited for "DevOps" to make sense. For everyone else, it's two separate roles.

When I think DevOps, I already think of it as a role separate from development. You have devs, and then you have devops. You can combine both roles into one, and that makes sense for smaller / earlier stage projects, but otherwise I think of devops as a separate role.

Kind of a mess because devops varies so much between companies and isn’t even consistently named.

But my experience is that it’s not necessary to wake up two groups of people—it’s either a developer that gets woken up because the project is too small or too early to be supported by operations, or it’s someone in devops/SRE/production engineer who gets woken up. There’s a lot of practices that need to be put into place to make this work, but it’s doable.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> You have devs, and then you have devops.

Better call the second role "Ops" then, and wait for someone to propose merging it with "Dev" again.

There's so much mental confusion and meaningless use of language now, about the term "DevOps" that was a fairly simple suggestion about bringing DEVelopment and OPerationS together. That sentiment is literally in the word, I don't know how it could be plainer.

[eropple]

> If you can have an operations team who are experts on the application as well

Then functionally they're going to end up as software developers. And you're going to treat them as such or they're going to leave. Which is what the notion of a "devops engineer" evolved to be, yet every good-to-great "devops engineer" I've ever worked with identified as a software developer and could be hired at any developer role they wanted.

If you want a warm-body ops team, they're not going to be experts. If you want experts, in 2019 they're going to rapidly stop being just-an-ops-team.

> Some managers have told me that hiring for devops is harder.

It's easier to hire "devops" if your idea of "devops" is "somebody with an AWS Associate cert." It's much harder to hire "devops" if your idea of "devops" is "thinks systematically and is capable of debugging a problem nose-to-tail without waking up a developer."

I am the latter, and there are remarkably few of these.

> And developers should feel some of the pain—I’m not saying page them in the middle of the night, but they should be doing daytime on-call rotations.

I feel like you've got this wildly backwards. Developers should be first-line on-call in almost every situation modulo detectible hardware failures. Because here's the thing--I've been doing this a long time as a mostly-unbiased consultant (I'm in-house now and it still holds), and in most environments, operations/infrastructure 1) break things less, and 2) break things quickly, so there's usually relatively little time between the break and the working-hours fix.

If a developer can't solve a developer problem because they think it's actually infrastructural, they can escalate. Making that ops/infra group be first-line support for application pages is both inefficient and unfair.

[aairey]

DevOps is not a role. You arebtalking about a modern ops role in this dialogue.

Merging the two as you said, is DevOps.