|
> The real answer is "ok, that is a bad idea for XYZ reasons, what problem are you trying to solve? That's the answer that I give immediately after the "No." Look, I get what you are saying. I am not trying to keep people away from the capabilities they need to improve how the whole show works. The problem is, what people in my business "guard" are often complex, critical systems, which themselves don't always meet the standards that their "guardians" would like to implement (just ask about legacy software :D). We have to say "No." and we have to enforce standards and procedures. Because there are a lot of really clever people around in tech, and clever people love to tinker. And that's wonderful! That's the entire spirit that got me into this biz! Take a problem, and build a solution. But things have to work. And they have to work tomorrow, and 2 years from now. And they have to be safe, they have to be compliant with a gazillion regulations, they have to pass audits. They have to be patched, they have to be maintained. And all that still needs to happen even after the guy who built them leaves the company. And they have to work for many many many people who are not tinkerers, who just want to click a button on their phones, and rightfully expect the whole shebang behind that button to "just work". That's why there have to be people who say "No." from time to time. If that happens indiscriminately, and without a care about why these clever people tinker up their solutions, then that's not good, I fully agree. |