No guts last week. I was invited to a meeting to discuss potential risks of running the tool. I like sessions like this. A lot can go wrong, always. I can practice the rule of three. This rule says: “if you can’t think of three ways a potential solution can fail, you don’t completely understand the problem.”
Johanna: We want to know what the cause of the disappeared objects is…..do have any idea?
Chris: The cause was not found, and there is no chance to find it, I think. We discovered the issue too late, so detailed logs are gone. As far as we can say is that for us it seems that the business logic worked correctly. This is why it is so strange why it happened.
Duko: Excuse me? You said “the business logic worked correctly”? That might be, but something was clearly wrong I should say! And by the way, could we rephrase your word “strange” into worrisome?
We started to create a list of questions that needed to be answered before we would run the tool. Half way the meeting the phone goes, it’s Bill. We put him on speaker.
Bill: Hi all, I installed the tool on the acceptance environment….it doesn’t run…. We don’t know why…(yet).
(Some guts, luckily not enough to do it directly on the production system)
Johanna: Thx Bill for your additional risk to our list. <Click> On the matter of how much we are going to test: we are going to test this thoroughly! Don’t even think about pushing this to production without my approval.
Duko: This reminds me of the Titanic Effect (Weinberg); the thought that disaster is impossible often leads to an unthinkable disaster.
And we kept working on the list of questions and risks. This was a good session.