> One would assume so. That's not always the case in my experience. Improvisational discussion of design tradeoffs and costs happen a lot. YMMV, I guess.
They certainly do, but significant, unchangeable decisions should not be made that way. If I think there is a better alternative to something expressed in one of these discussions, but do not have the details at hand to make the case, I will voice the alternative and compile the details later. Choices like that should not be made without documented rationale anyway.
> I'd agree with that, but design processes on the whole tend to more dysfunctional than organizations realize. There's still a lot stuff running on deprecated OSs, dead languages, and mountains of technical debt.
The solution is to fix the organizational dysfunction. Hiring to the dysfunction is a band-aid at best.
They certainly do, but significant, unchangeable decisions should not be made that way. If I think there is a better alternative to something expressed in one of these discussions, but do not have the details at hand to make the case, I will voice the alternative and compile the details later. Choices like that should not be made without documented rationale anyway.
> I'd agree with that, but design processes on the whole tend to more dysfunctional than organizations realize. There's still a lot stuff running on deprecated OSs, dead languages, and mountains of technical debt.
The solution is to fix the organizational dysfunction. Hiring to the dysfunction is a band-aid at best.