Post #1966167
2026-03-17 16:52 UTC
@chandlerc If you're willing I'd value hearing your critiques/questions about the conclusions, just to have another narrative in my head in this space.
The major thing I took from it is how important trust is for productivity in organizations, and how much it costs when that is lost. But that's a major bias-confirming point for me (mutter mutter 11 years @ G***gle mutter mutter), so I should probably be careful about accepting it too blithely.
Do you disagree with that point? Or are there other conclusions you see him as drawing you disagree with?
Replies (1)
-
@chandlerc@hachyderm.io 2026-03-17 17:02
@curiouserrandy I definitely _agree_ with how essential trust is. There may be some bias, but I have too many data points that back it up... I'm not sure I disagree with anything in the article TBH, but the part I'm still thinking about before making up my mind is around code reviews being in essence a form of layered-QA that was shown to not actually achieve the desired quality in a manufacturing context. The historical lesson is pretty clear cut, but I have questions about whether the analogy applies effectively to software. But it is a really interesting challenge my assumptions about software and so something I'm continuing to ponder.