[fl0ki]

There are definitely systems out there that can get away with being built primarily through kanban boards and fungible coders of average skill. The industry has decided that this is the default "best practices" for keeping a team productive. I'd prefer to never work on such a team myself ever again.

The problem is when project leads assume that their project should also be built like that, when actually it's mission-critical infrastructure that has to be architected up-front for scale, stability, security, graceful degradation, testability, provability, etc. and if you tried to chart that in story points and sprints it would be a comical farce. So they just don't do that, they try to wing it like it's a much simpler and lower-stakes project.

Now not only is it a total writeoff technically, but the kind of people that build projects this way are also sold on the idea that you never rewrite a project (thanks, Joel) so they're stuck with it forever. Major refactoring will never be a user story on the board, and even if it did it would be hard to do safely without better testability, and testability can't be improved without that refactoring, and etc. and the project has passed the event horizon of crushing failure from which no light can escape.

I have seen FAANG teams build world-scale mission-critical production infrastructure this way, including by people who claimed to be oldschool and claimed to know better, yet their names are in the git blame clear as day. I take nothing for granted any more.