> Nobody is reading or reviewing these documentation so what hope is there that anybody is reading or reviewing their new code?

Why do you assume that reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code, and that if docs aren't being reviewed it's somehow less likely that code is being reviewed?

There's a formal process for reviewing code because bugs can break things in massive ways. While there may not be the same degree of rigor for reviewing documentation because it's not going to stop the software from working.

But one doesn't necessarily say anything about the other.

▲

novaleaf 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate, but there's plenty of examples of code quality issues coming out of msft these days too.

▲

robotresearcher 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> these days

I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was, but let's not forget that Windows used to be very fragile indeed.

	▲	Wobbles42 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It was more fragile 20 years ago than it is today. It was more robust 5 years ago than it is today. Or at least that's been my impression. I can't back that up with hard data.

▲

smadge 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At another BigCo I am familiar with any external communications must go through a special review to make sure no secrets are being leaked, or exposes the company to legal or PR issues (for example the OP).

▲

stogot 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Same here. Four or five pairs of eyes on external comms, nothing like this would even get past the abstract submission.

	▲	Wobbles42 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Likely it wouldn't get written at all. The most useful aspect of layered approval processes is people treat them like outright bans and don't blog at all unless it's part of the job description.

▲

jacquesm 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they have the documentation... With Microsoft probably the answer to that is yes, but more often than not documentation is simply absent. And in cases like this not being too aware of where the lines are is probably a great way to advance your career.

▲

shadowgovt 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code because it's a lower bar than reviewing code.

I have never even heard of a software company that acts otherwise (except IBM, and much of the world of Silicon Valley software engineering is reactionary to IBM's glacial pace).

I'm not saying docs == code for importance is a bad way to be, just that if you can name firms that treat them that way other than IBM (or aerospace), I'd be interested to learn more.

▲

crazygringo 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, maybe my use of "lower bar" was ambiguous, and I realize now it has a dual meaning.

What I'm saying is, you have to review code to get it out the door with a certain degree of quality. That's your core product. That's the minimum standard you have to pass, the lowest bar.

In contrast, reviewing documentation is usually less core. You do that after the code gets reviewed. If there's time. If it doesn't get done, that's not necessarily saying anything about code quality.

Even if it's easier to review documentation, that doesn't mean it's getting prioritized. So it's not a lower bar in the sense that lower bars get climbed first.

▲

stogot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> Reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code because it's a lower bar than reviewing code.

You reason in circles

	▲	darkwater 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, they are specifically using a tautology to make a point.