Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Most of the developer teams are nothing but feature factories. There will be a point where what developers want to build and what the product needs will diverge. It is very hard to strike a balance IMO.
This tension is why it's a good idea to align everyone's incentives. Bonus the product team on reliability (as well as velocity), and the ops/sre team on feature velocity (as well as reliability), and it'll balance itself out.
I think some people simply can't get rid of the idea that there has to be some external paternalistic figure that looks over developers' shoulder and guides the poor hapless saps and their incentives. Do they give candy to the good boys/girls and coal to the bad ones? You might be thinking of Santa.
The developers and sre's incentives are the same as everybody else in the company: have a great, easy to sell, popular and reliable product. Management types insisting to compartmentalize incentives is them trying to have an excuse for their own existence.
We should all drag ourselves kicking and screaming to the reality that we can do much more with much less management layers. Even big companies, which are bloated beyond saving, are waking up to that fact. PMs are the first to go, just look at what Meta, a notoriously inefficient company is doing to their non technical PMs.
Think for a second why nobody has had the idea of letting an engineer be a 'Marketing Project Manager' of the marketing team and be calling the shots what campaigns to run, what marketing materials to produce, and make marketers estimate with poker cards how many of their leads will turn to a sale. Sounds stupid, right? Yet this is exactly what you want us to accept the other way around. Not gonna happen.
There is no excuse to have non engineers embedded in and actually calling the shots on behalf of an engineering team with the patronizing though that the engineers can't decide for themselves what to build and how to prioritize it.