Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breaking Up with On-Call

reflector.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 202 posts

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#111

Post by closeparen »

notnaut wrote: post #80
ekimekim wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I'm in charge of an on-call rotation I always try to make it very clear that this is not the expectation. In my preferred model of on-call, you have a primary, then after 5min an escalation to secondary, then after 5min an escalation to something drastic (sometimes "everyone", sometimes a manager). The expectation is that most of the time you should be able to respond within 5 minutes, but if you can't then that…

I don’t see how this changes the problem where there is an expected guarantee of a rapid response except that now two people are expected to be available and would now need to directly coordinate in order to ensure one person’s going for a swim doesn’t interfere with the other’s WoW raid.

That's more or less what my team does. It works well. At least much better than saying you can't for for a swim at all.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#113

Post by darrin »

liveoneggs wrote: post #67
rwmj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why people used to be paid time-and-a-half or even double-time for being on call. Ask your union to demand that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-and-a-half

For nurses on-call is a tiny amount - $3/hr and then you get 1.5x if you actually get called in

When I was at a small IT consulting shop ~15 years ago, this is roughly how it worked. We'd get paid 24x7 for a week on-call at minimum wage + 1.5x normal wage for any hours we had to log in.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#114

Post by thor_molecules »

ZaoLahma wrote: post #104
yodsanklai wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 min doesn't seem tenable over 24/7. Most likely you need to run errands and so on. In my team, our alerts aren't that critical, I just acknowledge on the phone and make sure I can get to the computer with 30 mn. I take it with me if needed. No, for me, the real pain with oncall is that there are a lot of systems in my team. I understand well maybe 30% of it. I'm clueless about 30%. In between for the rest. I can t…

This is exactly why I gave up a position as a full stack / devops engineer in favor of going back to low level drivers - there were too many unknowns, and far too many unknown unknowns often paired with expectations of prompt (and cheap) solutions to complicated issues. Technically it was interesting and challenging, but in terms of stress just not worth it. You could pay me twice my current salary and I still would…

> ...far too many unknown unknowns often paired with expectations of prompt (and cheap) solutions to complicated issues.

That describes pretty much all of my "full-stack" experience.

What sort of job/background do you have where you are writing low level drivers? I'd love to get into that side of things but I don't know where to start.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#115

Post by stackskipton »

apeescape wrote: post #72
stackskipton wrote: post #4

I have no idea what article was trying to convey since on call was poorly defined I also couldn’t take it seriously when article opened with this. > Startups cannot afford engineers to baby sit software, big tech does. Say what? As ops person, I’ve seen multiple startups where devs are drowning in operational issues because software was written enough for feature MVP, ship with poor testing then constantly poke at wi…

Well, did those startups succeed? If not, I think it means the author was spot on in saying startups can't _afford_ that.

One did, two did not. None of due to engineering.

Engineering rarely matters unfortunately but ability to weave a story and sell that story.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#116

Post by srhtftw »

dakiol wrote: post #62

For me the worst thing about being on-call is not the actual work outside business hours (it’s usually not much), but the potential work: if something happens I need to jump into my laptop within X minutes (changes from company to company, but it’s usually within 10 minutes). This means: I cannot go for a run, I cannot go to the movies, I cannot go for a dinner with family, I cannot even go shopping (shopping mall is…

I've voiced my opinion on this before¹.

The problem is on-call is an essential and critical part of a managerial role, but toxic to those in a developer role.

Managers must be on-call to ensure the appropriate people and resources are brought to bear on unexpected problems that threaten the business.

Developers must NOT be on-call to ensure appropriate attention is spent designing, developing and maintaining the code that makes the business possible.

The rise of software-as-a-service led to companies promoting "devops" engineering which conflates these roles and unfortunately helps unscrupulous executives unfairly squeeze more work from employees.

The core idea of devops, that managers/operators and developers should understand and be capable of performing each other's role, isn't a bad one. Those who understand how the business works at all levels can do more to make it successful. It goes hand-in-hand with continuous delivery.

The best engineers alternate between these roles in a predictable schedule. When in the managerial role they need to observe, react, delegate and escalate problems as appropriate. When in the development role they need to deliver features that create recurring value for the business.

But businesses should not expect engineers to play both roles at the same time!

This form of "on-call" is a toxic moral hazard. It's a sign of instabilty. It's a signal of executive grift looking for a quick pop. "on-call" robs developers of attention they need to develop the features and increases risks that schedules will slip.

It doesn't need to be this way. If a business needs software development it should hire or train engineers with that experience. Likewise if it needs managers or operators to deliver software as a service.

As an operator or manager I look forward to working a shift, but as a developer I will never again accept on-call rotation.

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42230215

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#117

Post by h1fra »

dakiol wrote: post #62

For me the worst thing about being on-call is not the actual work outside business hours (it’s usually not much), but the potential work: if something happens I need to jump into my laptop within X minutes (changes from company to company, but it’s usually within 10 minutes). This means: I cannot go for a run, I cannot go to the movies, I cannot go for a dinner with family, I cannot even go shopping (shopping mall is…

If you allow yourself to sleep then it's not entirely true. I totally agree that it's lurking and you think twice before starting an activity, but what's the worst that can happen? Run 10 minutes away from your house, take your laptop to the movies, and to your friends and family. I do it all the time and yes sometimes I need to isolate or find a place to work, I still enjoy the rest of the day

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#118

Post by AlotOfReading »

ZaoLahma wrote: post #104
yodsanklai wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 min doesn't seem tenable over 24/7. Most likely you need to run errands and so on. In my team, our alerts aren't that critical, I just acknowledge on the phone and make sure I can get to the computer with 30 mn. I take it with me if needed. No, for me, the real pain with oncall is that there are a lot of systems in my team. I understand well maybe 30% of it. I'm clueless about 30%. In between for the rest. I can t…

This is exactly why I gave up a position as a full stack / devops engineer in favor of going back to low level drivers - there were too many unknowns, and far too many unknown unknowns often paired with expectations of prompt (and cheap) solutions to complicated issues. Technically it was interesting and challenging, but in terms of stress just not worth it. You could pay me twice my current salary and I still would…

Oncall is becoming popular even for low level. My last few roles have all required it for reasons I've been unable to figure out beyond "all developers need on-call and you're a developer". In my case, a fix often requires hardware access and my commute is longer than the start-work SLA.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#119

Post by dxdm »

modo_mario wrote: post #60
Xylakant wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that have been interned in this or one of the other camps, or their descendants. It’s one generation ago, people born and raised in camps are still alive. George Takeo for example was born in one of the segregation camps. It’s a low stakes change. Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author - I would not have recognized the picture either. But now that it’s been pointed out that it’s from a site where pe…

>Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author Then what's the issue or purpose? Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage? That kind of social dynamic appears to be what this kind of things is about most of the time as opposed to preventing mental harm or stopping such issues from (re)occurring. >Knowing this, and insisting on keeping the images is now willfully associating with harmful behavio…

> Then what's the issue or purpose?

To not use a thing that symbolizes the indiscriminate incarceration of innocent people as some clipart for an article about oncall. It's in bad taste, and also the wrong metaphor, and it sends the wrong message, even if not done on purpose.

> Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage?

Morality has a subjective component and often works by seeing through other people's eyes: How would I feel if this happened to me? How will other people see me if I did this? There's no universal consensus for this, of course, thankfully.

So when people disagree about morality, I've found that it can be hard for the side that doesn't see a problem to understand what the other side is making such a fuss about. I also think there can be a performative aspect to moralizing. But I don't think it's fair or warranted to jump to the conclusion that just because one doesn't see the issue, that the other person must be posturing - because that's how you can make sense of their behavior from within your own point of view.

People see things that rub them wrong, they speak up, as did you. How would you know you're not just inflating your self-image by putting down their comment like this? If you aren't, maybe they aren't, either.

Re: Breaking Up with On-Call

#120

Post by viraptor »

gosub100 wrote: post #90
rwmj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why people used to be paid time-and-a-half or even double-time for being on call. Ask your union to demand that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-and-a-half

If I had a union it would demand a bunch of unqualified people join my team (and get paid the same as me) and it would forbid me from doing certain things because,say, moving the computer or plugging in a cable is IT 's job, whereas I'm SE . No thanks

While you will find some extreme examples that could go that far, unions don't generally do that. Organisations that fight unions however do like to bring up that example, so... you've been had with anti union propaganda.
Post reply on HN