I suggested that if there is no review process, it is a systemic issue, and that if there is a review process that failed to catch something this egregious, it is a systemic issue. My supposition is that regardless of how the publishing process works, there is a systemic failure here, and I made no claims as to how it actually works, so I'm not sure where the "you're incorrect on how it works" is coming from.

▲

p_ing 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers.

It doesn’t.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

AlienRobot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But if there are no gates, doesn't that mean the people who should have put the gates in there screwed up?

▲

p_ing 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no singular publishing org at MSFT. Each product publishes its own docs, generally following a style guide. But the doc process is up to the doc owner(s).

	▲	dxdm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

▲

arduanika 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How hard is this to understand.

Person A, possibly a vendor, pushed the content. Person B, working for MSFT, approved this process where the vendor could just push content, and vetted/instructed the vendor, and trusted that this vendor/process would represent the standards of the MSFT brand even amid the temptations of new tooling. Thus, at least 2 people screwed up, and probably more, because MSFT is a large corp and the vendor might be, too.

A common word for saying "2 or more" is "multiple". Multiple people screwed up. Learn to fucking count.