I've been reading a lot about companies moving towards implementing a one-person policy. Like, one person is end-to-end responsible for the backend, one person for android app, one for iOS app and so on.

They also call it "lean teams. Less people, less discussions, less bullshit"

Or maybe the search algorithms have flagged me as a recent job seeker, idk.

This is seriously scary because essentially it's telling devs "We will underpay you and overwork you as we wish. And you can't leave us because other companies have implemented their one person policy so u ain't getting hired anywhere else."

I hope they do realize the other side of the coin w/ that approach...

if that person gets sick, or burns out there is no 1 to continue that project w/o risk of breaking stuff like an elephant in a glass store =}

@We3D Yup.
No backup. Nothing stops you from leaving the company, and killing the product.
You need at least two people to maintain the apps, and ensure continuity.

I love when management tries to solve problems it’s hilarious. It’s like a bunch of monkeys trying to put the cube into the triangle hole.

Or just put a hard cap on the number of humans per department, a hard cap on the number of layers of management in each department, and a hard cap on the number of people per manager, just to encourage simplicity and eliminate the possibility of "empire building"

also nothing stops you from an "accident" lol

We have always tired doing the opposite.

We try to make sure at least 2 devs (in our 7 person team) know each system so that it's NOT dependent on a single person.

single-person-responsibility often leads to bad code as no one else knows anything about your system you just merge code without any review and cause bugs that could've been detected by another pair of eyes.

And if that one person is sick during an incident - no one else can fix it.

However - I can accept that's a valid strategy for small teams, if the managers are willing to take the risk. After all: staffing and code safety is a cost, a kind of insurance, that some companies choose not to pay, gambling that they'll be fine without it.

I'd join those companies just to fuck with them, build up 2/3 of a codebase like I'm working at 3 star pasta restaurant, and then just abruptly leave.

(if said company is refusing to suit my needs as a lead of course, like hiring a team, if they have the budget, of course not with a 5 people sized company)

Oh... I remember some management people suggesting something like that.

To paraphrase it nicely: They got torn apart.

It's just such a blatantly dumb idea...

You need at least 3 people to form a consensus in a team. 3 people, none of them being too dominant, so no decision is being formed by a single person alone.

Otherwise you end up with the old tale of: It was written by X. No one understands it, X was a special snowflake, X did everything on their own.

Then you can rewrite everything, cause refactoring is impossible.

Plus the one bus factor: Person being sick, getting fired or dies: Project is dead.