[kryogen1c]

> this just obfuscates the fact that individuals are ultimately responsible

in critical systems, you design for failure. if your organizational plan for personnel failure is that no one ever makes a mistake, that's a bad organization that will forever have problems.

this goes by many names, like the swiss cheese model[0]. its not that workers get to be irresponsible, but that individuals are responsible only for themselves, and the organization is the one responsible for itself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

[Ansil849]

> is that no one ever makes a mistake

This isn't what I'm saying, though. The thought I'm trying to express is that if no individual accountability is done, it allows employees who are not as good at their job (read: sloppy) to continue to exist in positions which could be better occupied by employees who are better at their job (read: more diligent).

The difference between having someone who always triple-checks every parameter they input, versus someone who never double-checks and just wings it. Sure, the person who triple-checks will make mistakes, but less than the other person. This is the issue I'm trying to get at.

[zaat]

If someone is sloppy and not willing to change he should be shown the door, but not because he caused outage but because he is sloppy.

People who operate systems under fear tend to do stupid things like covering up innocent actions (deleting logs), keep information instead of sharing it etc. Very few can operate complex systems for long time without doing mistake. Organization where the spirit is "oh, outage, someone is going to pay for that" wiil never be attractive to good people, will have hard time adapting to changes and to adopt new tech.

[tonfa]

> The difference between having someone who always triple-checks every parameter they input, versus someone who never double-checks and just wings it. Sure, the person who triple-checks will make mistakes, but less than the other person. This is the issue I'm trying to get at.

If you rely on someone triple-checking, you should improve your processes. You need better automation/rollback/automated testing to catch things. Eventually only intentional failure should be the issue (or you'll discover interesting new patterns that should be protected against)

[whermans]

If there is an incident because an employee was sloppy, the fault lies with the hiring process, the evaluation process for this employee, or with the process that put four eyes on each implementation. The employee fucked up, they should be removed if they are not up to standards, but putting the blame on them does not prevent the same thing from happening in the future.