[MrJohz]

Yeah, a lot of the examples made me think "wait, there's something else going on there, right?", which would make sense if the author has difficulty communicating or negotiating their proposals.

In the first example, for example, they suggested a new metric to track added warnings in the build, and then there was a disagreement in the team, and then as a footnote someone went and fixed the warnings anyway? That sounds like the author might be missing something from their story.

[watwut]

> In the first example, for example, they suggested a new metric to track added warnings in the build, and then there was a disagreement in the team, and then as a footnote someone went and fixed the warnings anyway? That sounds like the author might be missing something from their story.

I do not find anything missing here. This is how things often plays out in reality. Both your retelling of it and what was actually written in the article.

Your retelling: Some people agree and some disagree with new metric. That is completely normal. Then someone who agree or want to achieve the peace or just temporary does not feel like doing "real jira" tasks fixes warnings. Team moves on.

Actual article: the warnings get solved when it becomes apparent one of them caused production issue. That is when "this new process step matters" side wins.

[MrJohz]

I'm referencing the footnote where the author says that the discussion caused one team member to go and fix the issue. The warnings causing a production issue is, I think, a complete hypothetical.

What this story is missing is an explanation for why people were disagreeing. Like, why is someone not looking at warnings? Is it that the warnings are less important than the author understands? Is it that the warnings come from something that the team have little control over? And the solution the author suggests - would it really have changed anything if they already weren't looking at warnings? The author writes as if their proposal would have fixed things, but that's not really clear to me, because it's basically just a view into whether the problem is getting worse, which can be ignored just as easily as the problem itself.

[watwut]

Someone hacked his site or something, so I cant get back. But, I thought you mean situation in one of the first paragraphs where the team started take some issue seriously after actual problem.

And honestly, I have seen people disagree and fight literal standard changes like "lets have pipeline that runs tests before merge" or "database change must go through test environment before being sent over".

It is perfertly possible and normal for people to fight change and be wrong without there being grave smart missing reason. I have no problem to m trust the author that he was simply right in hindsight.

If you ever tried to improve processes or project with persistent issues, the problems author described are entirely believable. The author does not know what to do in that situation, but he described the usual dynamic pretty accurately.

[BobbyTables2]

IRL I’ve seen similar discussions devolve into an hour long bike shedding meeting about how to define thresholds for warnings, track new ones, etc.

Before the end, I had them all fixed. Zero is far easier to deal with…