[citizenpaul]

>DevOps won't want to support it? Burn down the company

Still true but you seem to blame the ops. I've been in a job where every dept was allowed free for all tech budgets. They would hire incompetent consultants to dump 3000hrs of work on devops then do it again next week and complain about how devops never gets anything done. Then 5 other departments would do the same thing.

You know how 99% of the work is in that last 5% of the project. Thats how all those consultants would leave everything.

[sakjur]

I read that as a frustration with the disparity between "you build it, you run it" and the enterprise-y habit to co-opt terms from free-roaming developers and stripping them of all meaning.

You can still have a central team of operators. When they're expected to deploy and support applications from development or procurement teams, I'd argue that's something else than devops for better or worse.

[scottlawson]

what I meant with "DevOps won't want to support it" was someone saying this before DevOps had even been asked, and by someone who wasn't even on DevOps, who just assumed that they probably wouldn't like this sort of thing.

[dsr_]

If this meeting doesn't include devs, I don't know what the context of anything in the article is supposed to be about. There are no major new ideas in business that don't involve software.

If it is not the case that "devs" is not functionally equivalent to saying "DevOps", then "DevOps" doesn't exist. You have an operations group, and you need their buy-in, so they should be invited to the meeting.