[neilv]

This is much like real Principal Engineer roles I've seen.

The skeptics of the role might not have seen how easily and badly a large multiple-team effort can go astray, and the value of someone spotting the problems, and making sure they get addressed, before the product line or company is ruined.

[ninetyninenine]

I agree with your second sentence. But Anyone can do that, it's not a skill exclusive to principals. The idea that only certain types of people have the intelligence to spot things like this are principals is wrong.

[neilv]

Agreed, many people do that, and that's great.

Maybe we should think of the Principal role as complementary? If you're working on a compiler, you're going to be interacting cross-team with hardware engineering team, etc., and spotting lots of things. But someone who is looking at all the teams, and not spending so much time on compiler details specifically, will spot some things the compiler person doesn't. So together you get better coverage of problems that neither alone could spot.

Of course, once we throw differing pay grades into an organization, everything gets more complicated. And people might resent something being called "complementary", if what's bothering them is that the role in question pays better or is considered more prestigious.

Though, the Principal role is in the engineering career track of that compiler writer, if they want that kind of ulcers.

[ninetyninenine]

it can be, but the fact of the matter is the role is viewed as "better". Principals are better, smarter, more experienced and higher ranking than people who don't hold that position.