I respect that but why? Not the incident itself, but the architecture thwy pick point to that they have no idea about what they are doing.

Their incident response gives me confidence that this sort of thing is much less likely to happen in the future.

It also brought to my attention how much they've progressed as a platform since I used them last.

>> Their incident response gives me confidence that this sort of thing is much less likely to happen in the future

That doesn't sound logical to me. The chances of such incidents happening isn't related to how they announce that incident.

yes it totally is.

A company culture of openly admitting mistakes, knowing that your team-mates will not play the blame game, means that problems will be reported quickly.

In a "conventional" culture, an engineer who makes a mistake (and who will be fired for making that mistake) is incentivised to cover up the mistake and hope that the blame falls elsewhere.

In an open culture, the engineer who makes a mistake is incentivised to immediately raise the alarm.

So while the chances of a mistake happening are the same (we're all human), the chances of it being caught quickly and dealt with quickly are better in an open culture.

>> So while the chances of a mistake happening are the same (we're all human)

...and that's the point I was making in my comment

think you're missing his meaning. should be:

>while the chances of a mistake happening are the same [at transparent companies like gitlab and at opaque companies like github]

>the chances of it being dealt with quickly are better in an open culture [like gitlab compared to a closed culture like github]

They lost 3h of customer data, it's not open culture. It's just gross incompetence.