|
|
|
|
|
by throwlogon
2154 days ago
|
|
> [T]he vast majority of it was driven by engineering-management-career resume-building and was actively detrimental to the editorial/content-production/journalism side of the house. Why didn't the non-technology side prevent this if it was so clearly detrimental? I can't imagine that the technology side of a media concern has that much influence over the company's overall priorities. |
|
then, after delivery, the tech team "we need 50% more staff to do this thing, its really good, it'll save 25% in our hosting costs"
Editorial then say: "sure, deliver this feature as well"
This continues, and then deadlines are missed. So tech say: "We have so much tech debt we need to re-architect" which allows ego/CV driven design.