the important aspect is that there should be enough working knowledge about these tools/processes/systems in those teams that they can work efficiently, and they can respond as the whole business evolves. (eg. scale up/down, extract and hand over or accept and integrate components, integrate other APIs, etc)
> and if those systems are everyone's responsibility, they're no one's.
again, there's a cut off eventually. for example many companies just use GitLab for CI. at that point it's up to the big umbrella to decide whether they want to be in one or many GL orgs.
> That seems to be what modern DevOps is becoming.
sure, but that cutoff seems to be infrastructure vs product. which seems a bit more healthier than cutting the software lifecycle in half.
I think it is central to the DevOps concept is that dev vs. ops segregation—at least on the small team level, perhaps not at the individual level—is a counterproductive division of labor that inherently fosters micro-optimizations on both sides of the divide that are counterproductive to effective value delivery. On a continuously available software service, the lowest-level product team should own it's components soup to nuts rather than having a dev team throwing hopefully-deployable code over the wall to an ops team.