> Bad code + time allowed to clean it up = perfectly well-defined business requirements + a license to think about code craftsmanship. That's a lot of people's dream job.

I agree, also sounds like an unusually well defined role with a clear way of having impact. I would also take this job any day over another job that would bait and switch me into some rewrite death march.

Its a pretty common paradigm too. Build fast, poorly, more ducttape than boiler plate, and it works.

Bring in a spit and polish crew and build towards an evergreen codebase.

Duct tape and spit keeps our infrastructure together.

Not sure if it's my "dream job".

But yeah, when you think about -- a sufficiently fecal-encrusted, lost-cause codebase is almost indistinguishable from an actual greenfield opportunity.

The Strangler: did someone call me?!