>If you’re building a product that billions of people will be stuck with, however, this can lead to a little stress. The history of the web is littered with bad APIs, ill-considered specs, and tangled piles of security vulnerabilities. Something a programmer puts together in a week can consume decades of engineering time in the future. WebAssembly could not and would not release as a half-baked or ill-considered spec because as browser developers we all understood the costs everyone would pay for that.
I don't understand how this is Google's fault? It sounds like the author had already hyped up the stress to insane levels before even working on the project. So it follows that everything they experienced within that context was also stressful.
I think you're Anthropomorphizing the Lawnmower here. The author is saying that while at Google these things happened to her because Google is a massive impersonal machine which hires talented, creative and sensitive people, pays them huge money and then dumps them in a technical bear pit with the executive leadership as audience.
If a project is too stressful, why didn't she say "no, this is too stressful, let me work on something else." To me, it reads like they went along with the stress, knowing it was going to be stressful, and acknowledging that it is indeed very stressful. This sounds like a lesson in asserting your boundaries around mental health.
Because there are strong incentives to persevere. Shipping a foundational spec is a major achievement, so it's easy to think that the stress is worth the goal. There's a cultural pressure to "suck it up" and not be "weak". Quitting can hurt your career and finances. So you try your best for as long as you can… until you can't.
If what you say is a valid explanation, then the original question "I don't understand how this is Google's fault?" should be answered with "they should reduce the incentives for employees so that they won't burn themselves out trying to outdo themselves".
Yeah, it sounds like sarcasm but I think the logic above can be read both ways.
Nobody is forced to climb Mount Everest, and doing so can be deadly. But do you blame the mountain for being "too attractive of an achievement" when someone dies trying to reach the summit? Know your limits and set your boundaries.
The question I've answered was about motivation, not blame.
The analogy you bring up isn't fitting, because unlike mountains, companies are run by people who consciously set up the incentives, assemble teams, set goals, receive feedback and can react to it. If a Mount Everest Travel Agency Ltd. advertised awesome climbs, got feedback from a participant that they're struggling and need a guide, and the company said "you won't get one, keep going!" then yes, I'd blame them for the injuries.
Agree - it seems like the person self selected to be on a tremendously challenging/ambitious/ambiguous project that might have been more of a side initiative for Google so it could watch/influence/keep tabs on the standard.
Like more of a cost center and less a profit center for Chrome.
I'm sure there are less stressful but perhaps less visible groups in Google that could have been switched to.
Also seems as much of an issue w.r.t. the competitive/co-opetion nature of the standards working group.
I don't understand how this is Google's fault? It sounds like the author had already hyped up the stress to insane levels before even working on the project. So it follows that everything they experienced within that context was also stressful.