| Hang on, pardner! We agree that management was faulty. So why do we give them the presumption of good faith by taking their word for how the programmer operated? We haven’ heard from the programmer, just from people who are covering up their identity. I’m not saying the following is likely, but it’s possible: What if the programmer argued with them that they needed to do more testing and allow more time for development? Or that their should be a budget for a redesign, rather than cobbling the -25 from the bits and bobs of the -6 and -20, but management rushed it into production over their objections? Then people die, and the programmer quits. Management goes on to settle while being careful to make it impossible to talk to the programmer, who may very well have a lot to say about management. We agree that management is at fault. Why take their word for it that the programmer operated without documentation? Why take their word for it that the lack of testing was the programmer’s choice? Maybe the programmer produced a huge document explaining why the product should not be shipped, and management buried it to save their own skins? |