Thread by @jessitron

“so that we have a single process for the entire organization”
is a death toll of software.
This is how large organizations slow themselves.

Unifying process gives every change a wide impact, and that means change must be slow.

“But architecture is important! It affects the whole organization! We must take it seriously.”

Importance implies a single process; a single process implies slowness.

Single careful process does _not_ imply the best solution is reached.
Instead, it retards iteration.

A single careful process _does_ imply a defensible solution will be reached.

So what’s the alternative?

architecture, library choice, security procedures -

What if we made it _less important_?

Explicit scope, separate clouds, whatever it takes to make strong boundaries.

If architecture of one hunk of software doesn’t impact the software cared for by other departments, then the decision is less important to the overall organization.

Clearly defined, stable APIs mean: worst case is a local replacement.

Keep big decisions local.

If we work at boundaries, limiting the scope of our decisions, making each one _less important_
then we can let process vary across the organization. And that means we are open to progress. To iteration, instead of ossification.

yet, if you’re the person with a high-level position in the organization, why would you want to make anything in your responsibility _less important_?
That would make you look less important.

Our hero culture gets in the way. 😭