When you use phrases like "managed to configure" to describe your production systems, it does not inspire confidence in long-term sustainability of those systems.
I can buy that if we stipulate that one person can belong to both groups, depending on the task and goals of the user.
Sometimes I just want the thing and really don't care about any details. Sometimes I want a very specific thing built in a very specific way. Sometimes I care about some details and not others.
How I use the tools at my disposal depends on what I want to get out of the effort.
A lot of Microsoft stories have got a lot more traction than this one although, yes, I agree, the community skews anti-Microsoft. Nevertheless, I’d bet many of our employers are Microsoft shops to a greater or lesser extent.
But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone. So what exactly are they supposed to say? In the context of the GP's post, that seems to be the point - there is no longer anybody there who is responsible for X anymore.
Several options, pretty much all of them involve being actually cooperative rather then intentionally unhelpful. If Bill was part of some other team, point to that team or its leader.
If he was in your team, you or leader can ask about what the person wants and move from there. Maybe you can actually answer the question. Maybe the proper reaction involves raising jira ticket. Maybe the answer is "we are probably not going to do that anymore". It all depends on what the person who came with the question wants.
> But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone.
The other people are still there. And the team IS responsible for X. And without doubt, they are fully responsible for helping figure out who should be contacted now and what should be done.
That is normal part of work after any reorganization.
I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
It doesn't necessarily even mean that the organization is "abnormal". Perhaps the reason Bill was let go was because X was not considered business-critical any more.
> I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
I LITERALLY offered the "we are probably not going to do that anymore" option. In your situation, you can scratch the probably away. That answer is still actually helpful unlike the original answer.
> Lastly, there are at least 50 Dems in congress right now who explicitly aren't beholden to corporate finance and regularly introduce bills to remove money from politics.
Sometimes seems like they introduce those bills only when they can't possibly pass. Makes for good theater and talking points ("I _tried_, look!").
I think you're right to a point, but that "a place to post clips and discuss them" isn't enough. The world is filled with clips that are essentially meaningless or taken out of context to say something different. In addition to aggregation and discussion, research and investigation is required in order to get the story behind the clip.
The animations don't seem to be retained across nodes, which seems to make the animations pretty noise more than a means to convey useful information.
For example in this simplified chart:
flowchart LR
subgraph Inputs
A
B
end
subgraph Middleware
M
end
subgraph Outputs
X
Y
end
A --> M
B --> M
M --> X
M --> Y
G --> L
end
```
The input animation colors are pink and green, but the next step (M->output) is blue and orange.
I'd expect to see actual flow of usage/data (and if it included diagram syntax to specify message rates, etc that would be even better). So if there's a blue dot on the input side, I should be able to track that on the output side to its final destination.
reply