[phillipcarter]

As a counterpoint, individual code ownership can be a fantastic model too. It lets engineers specialize and takes advantage of social systems that form naturally anyways. I’ve not personally seen group ownership work well, and in practice, it’s still an individual who knows a given area the best.

[sam_lowry_]

> reducing individual code ownership

I am now working in an organization that is set up to reduce code ownership, and they struggle to attract talent, although pay is good and work is fulfilling.

How do they do reduce individual code ownership? Horizontal integration. Developers code, analysts design DB structures (at least nominally), project managers set up meetings. Different silos exist for CICD, cloud roles, core teams.

There are vetting committees everywhere that have the last say on the libraries used and the nitty-gritty details of REST APIs and naming.

It exhilarating to start projects, then see them degrade inevitably into corporate monstrosities.

[diarrhea]

> an organization that is set up to reduce code ownership, and they struggle to attract talent

These might not be related though?

> work is fulfilling

> It exhilarating to start projects, then see them degrade inevitably into corporate monstrosities.

What you describe does not sound pleasant. So it's not fulfilling after all?

[sam_lowry_]

Projects are fulfilling because they have public utility.

The no individual code ownership policy is hard to bear for inquisitive minds, though.

Thus the talent shortage.

[ilyt]

You assume projects are fulfilling because they have "public utility" (whatever the fuck that means). That's your assumption, not objective fact.

I would not work on boring ass project with cripping management problems and think that's fulfilling. I assume you have recruiting problems because most people share that sentiment.

People like to work on interesting stuff without much office politics, that is "fulfilling" to them, even if outcome is app that would be "boring" to the outsider.

[sam_lowry_]

> That's your assumption, not objective fact.

I meant working for emeregency services, social security, global medical dossiers, etc This is objectively public utility.

[mannykannot]

I feel the post you are replying to is really advocating for shared knowledge, which is entirely compatible with the positive aspects of ownership. Personally, I have seen nothing but trouble from people whose distorted concept of ownership opposes sharing knowledge of "their" stuff.

[mcny]

I am ok with code "ownership" but if someone other than me can just outright reject pull merge requests without explaining why then I should not have to read this code or make changes. If you own it, you fix it. What needs to fix? Figure it out. Don't ask me. You are the owner.