Yes, but then, really, the fundamental popular software paradigm is not just unsanitized but unsanitary. The models for sanitary-by-design are there. It's just math.
The core leadership behind inadequate decisions, often above the CTO, are frequently of the "don't care about the math, just the numbers" type.
Perhaps the CTO raised concerns. Maybe, not. But if we want an open engineering culture in software, unlike "applied engineering" in other industries, we should actively oppose punishing those that embrace open-to-peer-review models, even when the openness backfires and the history gets removed by the open workflow participants.
We may still have a fragile and unique culture in software, that perhaps contradicts past history such as engineering in construction (look up "corruption construction") or the unique corruption of medicine ("sugar lobby", "food pyramid").
Despite bad decisions and the fumbled cover-up, the attempt to perform in public on their part is valuable to me. We don't have easy access to which of the doctors took money to publish "research" that "calories are the same", pushing for more carbohydrates in diets. This may translate to multiple people, people you might personally know, dying of diabetes.
With open software, we get the names. This should not reward click-bait media witch-hunting.
We may still have a fragile and unique culture in software, that perhaps contradicts past history such as engineering in construction (look up "corruption construction") or the unique corruption of medicine ("sugar lobby", "food pyramid").
Despite bad decisions and the fumbled cover-up, the attempt to perform in public on their part is valuable to me. We don't have easy access to which of the doctors took money to publish "research" that "calories are the same", pushing for more carbohydrates in diets. This may translate to multiple people, people you might personally know, dying of diabetes.
With open software, we get the names. This should not reward click-bait media witch-hunting.