[Klinky]

I don't think artificial turnover is the solution. Teams need good documentation and design or else onboarding/offboarding will be painful and a huge distraction. If you've got good documentation and design methodology, then there is no need to churn the team artificially. Keep documentation up to date, design well, and redesign areas that are tech debt or not done well. That's easier said than done though. There is no magic bullet.

[noizejoy]

> I don't think artificial turnover is the solution.

I didn’t see this being suggested in the parent post.

[softwaredoug]

I actually think there’s optimum voluntary and non artificial turnover where people naturally move to other opportunities. And conversely a calcification where people get stuck in a comfort zone.

I don’t think people should be forced to leave. Instead I paradoxically think people should be hired more interested in growth and this more likely to leave / move around the company / try different roles.

[Klinky]

Who defines calcification and comfort zone? Be careful you don't confuse a mature stack with subject matter experts who can execute effectively as "outdated calcification". I would be wary of someone who wants to hop around a lot. Are they adding tangible value to every team or disrupting things before bailing to the next team?

[Klinky]

The entire second paragraph is about finding optimum turnover to keep the team fresh and dynamic. I think it's impossible to control organic voluntary turnover, as you don't control people's lives/desires. The alternative would be artificial turnover, moving people in and out of teams as needed to meet this goal. I think people joining and leaving is disruptive regardless of it being organic or artificial.