|
|
|
|
|
|
by birdstheword5
1319 days ago
|
|
|
Sadly, I think you are completely correct, and this exact sequence of events will go down. I don't think they're an idiot or malicious - I think they're clever and mean well, but perhaps they're blinded by their enthusiasm after getting certified |
|
|
That said, you can figure out (just ask!) if this person was brought in as the result of an already-made decision to move to this type of development, or if this person is pushing it. As an EM, I'd have no problem with a report directly asking that question.
If the answer is the decision was made, and this hiring was a downstream result, then your choice is likely to deal with it or move on. If the decision hasn't been made / this architect is advocating for it, then a cost benefit analysis (which you'd think would be a standard part of any work) will be illuminating. My understanding of the tooling / debugging / monitoring tooling for serverless is that it's still quite raw. Although my bias is towards not wasting innovation tokens on things like serverless / I align strongly with the choose boring technology view advocated by Dan McKinley [1], amongst others.
[1] https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology