This is a problem of the current curial offices not following the traditional practice of dicasteries letting other dicasteries review their documents when competence overlaps or is related. Such confusions are avoided when this is done.
This is a problem of the current curial offices not following the traditional practice of dicasteries letting other dicasteries review their documents when competence overlaps or is related. Such confusions are avoided when this is done.
Yes.... This is not a startup[1], after all; they ought to have standards. Normally it seems to me that they would post their pull request to Github (well, the equivalent) and have an adjacent team do a peer review, then after addressing any reviewer comments they could roll out a canary release to their staging environment. Otherwise user-visible outages are likely, resulting in potential loss of trust.
Its the classic case of a medieval court run amok. Courtiers hate each other, and they go behind the back of each other to enact a decree on the kings authority, so they can get all the credit.
An excellent point, Father. My hesitation, though, is whether the dicasteries are staffed with people who are fundamentally on the same page. Interdicasterial review makes sense when everyone's sense of the law aligns and you need to polish the details. When that alignment is imperfect, it seems like a recipe for stasis and endless rounds of internal bickering. In such a case, perhaps a "just do it" logic makes sense.
Puts new light on the question regarding the recent reinstatement of ministerial faculties by +Pe├▒a Parra.
This is a problem of the current curial offices not following the traditional practice of dicasteries letting other dicasteries review their documents when competence overlaps or is related. Such confusions are avoided when this is done.
Yes.... This is not a startup[1], after all; they ought to have standards. Normally it seems to me that they would post their pull request to Github (well, the equivalent) and have an adjacent team do a peer review, then after addressing any reviewer comments they could roll out a canary release to their staging environment. Otherwise user-visible outages are likely, resulting in potential loss of trust.
[1] despite the presence of angel investors
Phenomenal
Its the classic case of a medieval court run amok. Courtiers hate each other, and they go behind the back of each other to enact a decree on the kings authority, so they can get all the credit.
In that sense, I feel like traditionalists should love this kind of stuff. It's what the "good ol days" were actually like ;)
As long as your change request doesnтАЩt get held up in approvalsтАж
"Forgive me your Eminence, I pushed my changes directly into the master branch without a pull request!"
Drop that bold and brazen bit of irony, Missy or itтАЩs an after school detention youтАЩll be havingтАж.
Angel Investors !! That was the icing on the cake of the comment of the day!
An excellent point, Father. My hesitation, though, is whether the dicasteries are staffed with people who are fundamentally on the same page. Interdicasterial review makes sense when everyone's sense of the law aligns and you need to polish the details. When that alignment is imperfect, it seems like a recipe for stasis and endless rounds of internal bickering. In such a case, perhaps a "just do it" logic makes sense.
Puts new light on the question regarding the recent reinstatement of ministerial faculties by +Pe├▒a Parra.