Re: Protecting production from "us"
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:17:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+fnDAaAaGiWK8gppGgXKeGhEqSWnr=FAUyaT704fMJWjoYgLA_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Herring, David <HerringD_at_dnb.com> wrote:
> Per Jeremy and Alfredo, I was really hoping for any putty changes to be
> automated so there's no easy way (or accidental way) to override them.
> Meaning, everything needs to be done at the host or server-level.
>
> ...
>
> What I liked about foreground color changes through $PROMPT_COMMAND and $PS1
> is that "ls --color…" still works independently. I find it helpful to have
> file color coding but if the background gets changed then that color coding
> can possibly make it impossible to see certain types, so I'd have to turn
> that off.
I wrestled through all this; the server-side code I wrote makes sure that "ls --color" still works well.
Dave - I'll send you my stuff privately, and I'll work on cleaning it up and posting it to github for everyone else when I have a little more time.
> This is the first time we've had an accident like
> this in years and the backlash is now any further mistakes on production
> will result in immediate termination.
That is so backwards and stupid that it makes me angry.
Here's a great inflammatory quote for your management from "The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" by Sidney Dekker, Chapter 1:
Throwing out the Bad Apples, lashing out at them, telling them you are not happy with their performance, may seem like a quick, nice, rewarding fix. But it is like peeing in your pants. It gets nice and warm for a little while, and you feel relieved. But then it gets cold and uncomfortable, and you look like a fool. Lashing out at supposed Bad Apples, at the putative culprits behind all the trouble, is actually a sign of weakness. It shows that you could be at a loss as to what to do in the wake of failure. You actually have no idea how to really make progress on safety. And by bearing down on supposed Bad Apples, you actually make things a lot worse:
- You fool yourself and your stakeholders (customers, regulator, other employees, the media) that you have done something about the problem;
- You actually haven't done anything to remove the problem that exhibited itself through those people. It leaves the trap in place for the next practitioners. And it leaves you as exposed as you were the first time;
- With fear of punishment, people will hide evidence of mistakes. They will no longer report irregularities. They will remain silent about problems, incidents, occurrences.
So when you think you are "setting an example" with a robust response to a supposed "Bad Apple", think about what you are setting an example for. You will condition your people to shut up, to conceal difficulties.
Read a little John Allspaw. This article isn't a bad start:
http://www.businessinsider.com/etsy-chad-dickerson-blameless-post-mortem-2012-5
-- http://about.me/jeremy_schneider -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Dec 04 2015 - 17:17:51 CET