[JMTQp8lwXL]

Instead of single architects, companies need architect boards. And they can vote on these ideas before a single individual becomes a single point of failure.

Expecting 1 person to make 100% correct decisions all the time is too much expectation for one person. People go down rabbit holes and they have weird takeaways, like replace all the databases with queues.

[Kalium]

I agree in abstract, but in practice it's quite difficult to set up a successful democratic architecture board. You need teams or departments that all have architects, and an engineering organization where both managers and engineers accept a degree of centralized technical leadership. Getting there is, in my opinion, the work of years. It's especially challenging because spinning up such a board requires a person who can run it single-handedly.

In this particular company, the Chief Architect in theory had a group around him. They did nothing to check his poor decisions, and from the outside seemed primarily interested in living in the functional programming nirvana he promised them.

[sixdimensional]

Thinking in terms of building physical buildings.. architects are often the visionaries but engineers are the realists. You know, architects come up with these crazy incredible building designs based on their engineering understanding, but ultimately it has to be vetted, proven and implemented by engineers.

I have, however, always wondered why people should be seen as "only architects" and "only engineers". While the separation of duties is critical to ensure the overall construction is sound, people can be visionary engineers, and people can be knowledgeable in both how to do something in real terms as well as dreaming on how to go beyond.