On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:52 PM bawolff <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First of all, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with everything tgr
wrote.
Regarding Pine's question on technical debt.
Technical debt is basically a fancy way of saying something is "icky". It
is an inherently subjective notion, and at least for me, how important
technical debt is depends a lot on how much my subjective sensibilities on
what is icky matches whoever is talking about technical debt.
So yes, I think everyone agrees icky stuff is bad, but sometimes different
people have different ideas on what is icky and how much ickiness the icky
things contain. Furthermore there is a trap one can fall into of only
fixing icky stuff, even if its only slightly icky, which is bad as then you
don't actually accomplish anything else. As with everything else in life,
moderation is the best policy (imo).
--
Brian
To set degree of ickyness you need a stakeholdergroup, which is often
just the sales department. When you neither have a stakeholder group
or sales department you tend to end up with ickyness set by the devs,
and then features win over bugs. Its just the way things are.
I believe the ickyness felt by the editors must be more visible to the
devs, and the actual impact the devs do on bugs to lower the ickyness
must be more visible to the editors.