indrora, boot of journalism on Nostr: npub1qv26q…6ergd I think a lot of people misread how Microsoft did it. MSFT cut ...
npub1qv26qmyjutefstx6ccqv3l7dxakzy6n92qpqqsmg59wsayyxs55q86ergd (npub1qv2…ergd) I think a lot of people misread how Microsoft did it. MSFT cut much of their testing org not because they didn't like the answer, but because the org had become useless to work with:
* Bad incentives (number of bugs opened, number of bugs re-opened, etc.)
* Movement up within the org consisted of “replace the old tools, but only for your niche use case”
* Many of the tools were undocumented and brittle
* Management had no incentive to fix their problems.
This led to an org that didn't produce useful work, coupled with an incentive for developers to... actually use the software they were developing (a revolutionary concept).
This is not to say the removal was clean or well thought out, but “your hand has cancer”, "then chop off the arm" sure is a solution.
A ton of places didn't see this and only saw "Microsoft cut their QA org!" as permission to slice off a whole appendage to increase percieved revenue & make the board happy.
* Bad incentives (number of bugs opened, number of bugs re-opened, etc.)
* Movement up within the org consisted of “replace the old tools, but only for your niche use case”
* Many of the tools were undocumented and brittle
* Management had no incentive to fix their problems.
This led to an org that didn't produce useful work, coupled with an incentive for developers to... actually use the software they were developing (a revolutionary concept).
This is not to say the removal was clean or well thought out, but “your hand has cancer”, "then chop off the arm" sure is a solution.
A ton of places didn't see this and only saw "Microsoft cut their QA org!" as permission to slice off a whole appendage to increase percieved revenue & make the board happy.