[dclowd9901]

Oh, now I have a name for the epidemic pervasive through our company.

Almost all of the tech debt we have was introduced by leadership guidance to ignore. And all additional debt to manage it or ameliorate it (since problems don't just go away) is also guidance from leadership to fast track fixes.

What happened to the days where software engineers were the experts who decided tech priority?

[chanux]

> guidance from leadership to fast track fixes.

That is *IF* there ever is acknowledgment that things need to be fixed.

"These pesky issues, who knows where they come from, just quickly get it out of the way. We have the next shiny new to tackle for the next quarter, and we better finish it quickly".

[dragonwriter]

> What happened to the days where software engineers were the experts who decided tech priority?

Outside of a very small number of firms that were called out as notable for being led in a way that enabled that, often by engineers that were themselves still hands on, they never existed, and even there it was “business leadership that happened to also be engineers, and made decisions based on business priorities informed by their understanding of software engineering”, not “software engineers in their walled-off citadels of pure engineering”, and it usually involves, in successful firms, considerable willingness to accept tech debt, just as business leadership can often not be shy about accepting funancial debt.

[mananaysiempre]

> business leadership can often not be shy about accepting financial debt

Business leadership is not shy about accepting financial debt when business leadership has decided it should accept financial debt. Technical leadership should ostensibly not be shy about accepting technical debt because business leadership has decided it should accept technical debt. The distribution of agency and responsibility in the two situations is different.