You’re correct nothings perfect, but these systems are really easy to develop. That said and as I already stated, most people are mediocre. Same goes for management. I see lots of talk and little delivery. It’s the whole reason YC invests in founders that “get something shipped” is a thing. People don’t move fast, they talk, they mess around, they don’t commit and deliver. Same for managers as engineers.
Further and to clarify, I said it’s fine if you can’t complete a task due to some unknown. Vocalize it to the team and update accordingly. It won’t be held against you if you if you collaborate to get it resolved. If that happens every time, there may be an issue, but typically people learn to investigate before committing.
Expecting people do what they commit is the only way to drive people to success. As I said, there are two factors, how much you commit to and how much you deliver on commitments. If people want to move up they have to commit to more AND deliver more over a 6-12 month period. Failure to deliver on a regular basis means you should commit to less. In either case, it’s easy to measure objective results.
Comments like these are red flags for me, because pushing back on estimates or communication is not going to go well. Your job is to produce results, if you fail, but ask for assistance that’s one thing. We can plan around that. If you fail and don’t request assistance that’s another. It’s about promoting solid engineering and development, keeping delivery timelines, etc. This worked on the remote places I’ve worked, might not be a great fit for you idk.
In terms of bugs, that’s more of an engineering culture. We always had strict and thorough PR reviews. High test coverage, formatted code with comments and two reviews from at level or more senior engineers.
