A short dark humor break from the monitoring series

I wrote these a few months ago and now seems like a good place to post these.

TW: self-deprecating and dark trans-woman-in-tech humor.

(Modelled after excuses made to management, product and end users):

I’m…

• A woman, but not entirely up to spec [1]
• A woman, but with some technical debt.
• A woman, but next releases are going to be a lot more accurate.
• A woman, but released with some P1 bugs.
• A woman, but she doesn’t pass. acceptance tests.
• A woman, at least according to project status
• A woman, at least as written in the documentation.
• A woman, but we had to maintain backward compatibility with the previous release
• A woman, but maybe we could try a reconfiguration
• A woman, refactored from an earlier release
• A woman, but after a product pivot
• A woman, but maybe we should integrate the user testing feedback
• A woman, after we finally have resources from the M&A

[1] That one prompted a fun exchange with one of my friends:

she replied: “the spec is needlessly restrictive.”

I replied: “That’s the problem with RFCs, one writes ‘MAY’ or ‘SHOULD’ and the public thinks it’s a ‘MUST ”

Then she replied: that’s a shame as we lose some of the intended use cases this way

The next installment of the monitoring series should be up in the next few days.