Hyrum Wright, of Hyrum’s Law posted a, in my view, valid, reasonable, and realistic question. Where do the responsibilities lie when a change to a core library/service/tool that is demonstrably good for many breaks tests for some? Is it with the person/team that made the fix? The person/team that wrote the test? The person/team that set things up so that nothing can be released with a failing test? And what should the next steps, immediate and long term, be anyway? Because in an automated, coupled system with gates to prevent bad things from happening this good thing either brings the system to a halt or gets delayed, which means value isn’t being delivered. The right answer, as is often the case, is “It depends”.
In a small (whatever that means) project it’s a non-question. It’s the same team, so just fix it. If it’s a periodically released, externally maintained thing, then fixing the issue is just part of the periodic upgrade tax. It’s only when you have a large project, with a team of teams, that the issue of responsibility becomes something to solve for. In theory, in the Team of Teams everyone’s responsible. In practice, when everyone’s responsible, it will often appear that no-one is responsible. Dealing with that conundrum is a topic for next year though.
The thing about language though is that how you ask the question is as important as the question itself. In the original post Wright asked whose fault the broken tests were. Based on later discussion, and the way I took it, “fault” was shorthand for “responsible for fixing”. But that’s not what question, as written, asked.
The literal question was about blame. That took the discussion in the team dynamics direction. Talking about dysfunctional teams and how even getting into that situation is possible. Blame is not productive or conducive to fixing problems and preventing them happening again in the future. It might have a short term impact, but all it does is push the problem further underground and make finding/fixing it harder next time.
Our jobs are to deliver as much value as possible as quickly as possible. Playing the blame game makes that harder. That’s why language matters.