[120568] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Revisiting the Aviation Safety vs. Networking discussion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Israel)
Thu Dec 24 14:49:36 2009
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:48:35 -0500
From: Dave Israel <davei@otd.com>
To: David Andersen <dga@cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <DAD88741-1EF6-4318-8891-5543B0865469@cs.cmu.edu>
X-otd-MailScanner-From: davei@otd.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>>> I _do_ create action plans and _do_ quarterback each step and _do_
>>> slap down any attempt to deviate.
>>>
>> imagine a network engineering culture where the concept of 'attempt to
>> deviate' just does not occur.
>>
>
> Are you trying to suggest that this is something horrible, or that it's the future of network engineering? :)
>
> I'm actually serious in asking the question, despite the grin.
>
Possibly, he is trying to hint at a connection with Nazis, so somebody
will mention it, invoking Godwin's Law, and bringing a fruitless
religious thread to a close.
There's a full range of methods, with "just do it" on one side,
"deviation is terms for dismissal" on the other, and plenty of shades of
gray in between. I've seen both extremes result in excessive downtime.
(How impromptu engineering can go wrong shouldn't take much imagination;
the "no deviation" rule is especially hysterical when the backout plan
doesn't work, but even without that, the "one thing didn't work exactly
right, back it out and try again in two weeks" effect is destructive to
both progress and morale.) Working with the dynamic and quality of the
team is more important than any change management paradigm.
-Dave
