Live data from Hacker News

Company as Code

blog.42futures.com

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Company as Code

#81
Any non-digital system you describe "as Code" is not a source of truth, but a Source of Hope. The code describes the intended state, something has to reconcile it with reality.

This is the same as having it in unstructured documents. Which means the auditing is still required funny enough.

So yes, this could be done. I'd love to see what run in the CI/CD for a change. When someone works on the wrong thing, or breaks compliance IRL, how do you backport it into this? "Alice is a software engineer, and created this SaaS account with her email when the company was founded. The admin email can not be changed and she has admin even though another role should control that"

Re: Company as Code

#83

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen. The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization. Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need…

It constrains power and makes decisions auditable and holds those with power accountable to guidelines. Management doesn't like this paradigm for the very same reasons big tech platforms make conduct and moderation guidelines vague and nonspecific. It frees them up to remove, penalize, fire, and otherwise exert power for reasons they can't explicitly justify.

It's exactly the same paradigm the EU and countries around the world are avoiding - denying due process in things like freedom of press and expression, because they feel it allows them flexibility in suppressing and "managing" speech, people, and groups they deem problematic.

Having an explicit rule of law constrains the exercise of power. Those looking to wield power will never like that.

Re: Company as Code

#85

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen. The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization. Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need…

> I also do not see it happening at scale while competition is considered the default operating mode of society at large.

You don’t even need competition between people and orgs, just between solutions that work more-or-less equally but come with different second-order tradeoffs. Consider two approaches that solve a company’s problem equally but create different amounts of work for different people in the organization. Which solution to choose? Who gets to decide, based on what criteria? As soon as even a little scale creeps in this is inescapable.

Re: Company as Code

#86
I have started learning cuelang and there was nice webinar style video where the GitHub policies where defined as code and deployed with terraform. I immediately thought that such thing would be very valuable at auditing.

Re: Company as Code

#87
This is perhaps a bit different, but Fossil supports storing more types of written company artifacts in the repo:

>One notable feature of Fossil is that it bundles bug tracking, wiki, forum, chat, and technotes with distributed version control to give you an all-in-one software project management system.

https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/whyallinone.md

Re: Company as Code

#88
post #56
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3 different sources of truth about ownership I see only 1. Admin, access ownership.

I always thought of this as authority, accountability, and responsibility of a thing. Ideally one group or person has all three. In practice you’ll have many entities with some combination of the three.

I am sure mere access does not imply any kind of ownership.

Re: Company as Code

#89
The softer approach to this I've implemented in the past is to ingest and link up org data (user accounts, groups, projects, etc) into one central DB and then provide an audit notifications or dashboards to authorized users. Examples:

    - Slack user detected with full access that isn't associated with a staff-grouped LDAP account
    - Group A in System X doesn't match the members of Group A in System Y)
    - Service Z provisioned, but their associated customer account is deactivated
These kinds of violations _can_ be automatically synchronized in a variety of ways, but I've seen that result in politically embarrassing outcomes (e.g. Sensitive user X is fired, their Slack account is automatically deactivated, people notice before some kind of staff meeting can be held to talk about what's going on).

Re: Company as Code

#90

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen. The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization. Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need…

What prevents people from not doing what the policy says? Since neither "paper doc" policy nor "code policy" actually constrains humans from trying to exploit or work around the system, oversight and compliance still seem like messy human functions. Does this just become "more structured compliance documentation"? Which sounds nice, but not dramatically different.

And on the creation side, what prevents political fights over what goes into the "code policy" of exactly the same sort that lead to compromises or oddities in paper policies?

Post reply on HN