They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it. You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
This is an HR problem. Two HR problems really, as exemplified by both your sentences.
> They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it.
At most companies, you don't get to choose projects you want to work on. You get assigned a project whether you like it or not. Almost every other company functions like this, Google's insistence on being different is shooting them in the foot.
> You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
Maybe Google should be selecting for people who aren't interested in chasing promotions. There are plenty of 'workman' developers in the world who are okay with spending the rest of their careers maintaining legacy systems. This probably ties into good ol' Silicon Valley age discrimination: they spend so much time chasing young hotshots with chips on their shoulders, while most of the workman developers are in their 50s.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not that an engineer says no but rather, other projects that are growing and have more resources/weight behind them come calling and looking for engineers that want to transfer into their project. A stalled/non-growing project can't block a transfer like that.
If Google really wanted to solve this problem they could by making the promotion criteria different. Their actions say they don't really see it as a problem, though.
I'm sure that's what Google developers tell themselves to feel better about being unable to keep something running for more than a couple of years, but the fact is Google could easily recruit developers to maintain things. They pay well, they make things people have heard of, and not everyone is insanely ambitious that they actively refuse to work on things that won't further their career.
It's strange that getting promoted is such a universal goal. Many or most people who start on the promotion ladder get stuck in the miserable middle. There's surprisingly little reflection on whether or not the extra money is worth the extra hassle, or at what point one should avoid further promotion.
> They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it.
At most companies, you don't get to choose projects you want to work on. You get assigned a project whether you like it or not. Almost every other company functions like this, Google's insistence on being different is shooting them in the foot.
> You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
Maybe Google should be selecting for people who aren't interested in chasing promotions. There are plenty of 'workman' developers in the world who are okay with spending the rest of their careers maintaining legacy systems. This probably ties into good ol' Silicon Valley age discrimination: they spend so much time chasing young hotshots with chips on their shoulders, while most of the workman developers are in their 50s.