At the end of course the decision will be based on business and market analysis, as even the cloud native foundation abides more or less to the same rules as everyone else does... Introducing LTS for kubernetes however will be a huge step towards pushing it down the enterprise products alley, where software is selected more for the amount of people available in the market, capable to work with it / operate it, and the running costs generated, rather than satisfying an actual need of the business.
Chances are that if your org needs LTS for kubernetes, then kubernetes is not the right solution to your problems. Which is probably the case anyway... but that's a whole different story.
Agreed! It is of course not always the employee's fault for not "liking" meetings. Pretty often meetings are not well prepared (by the one who called for the meeting in the first place), not well moderated (if any kind of moderation is there at all) and there is little consideration if everyone on the invitee is really relevant or not. And some people are just not good at explaining stuff and communicating intent, as you said. These are all facts and I can't deny them. I am very often guilty of all of these mistakes myself. As is most probably everyone who has ever organised a meeting.
It takes effort to mitigate all that and it takes even more effort to try to work around it if it happens a lot. If you are ready and willing to improve the system - welcome to management ;) If this feels like a whole lot of crap to you - better stay away from big companies, do some consulting, find startups with like minded people... Staying on a job, being unmotivated or stressed out is not good for anyone involved.
Not quite... my argument is that a lot of meetings are necessary to keep an organization ticking - decision making is just a part of it. If for anyone that feels like corporate bs (which is a perfectly valid standpoint!!!), well... these people aren't cut for a corporate life. What's the problem in that? If I don't like children I probably wouldn't try to become a kindergarten teacher, if I absolutely can't stand communication and politics, I shouldn't work in a corporate setting.
And it's also perfectly OK to find this out about yourself only later in life, when you have gathered some (more) professional experience.
What's not OK imho is labelling other people's version of work as "corporate bs".
I don't want to sound like the bad guy here who defends corporate, but I kind of feel like OP and a lot of comments are missing the point. Which is: large business organizations are complex social structures. You can't have a complex social structure without a lot of communication going on. Of course there are zounds of different ways to communicate with each other and if you (and your colleagues) feel like certain meetings are just a waste of time and have no benefit whatsoever, there is something wrong with the org's culture.
I happen to manage approx 20 people in a ~500 person org. Everyone gets a chance to decide if they want to focus on becoming a social animal and growing in the org (which results in more meetings, more emails, more chats, etc.) or just concentrate on the technical stuff. The latter is perfectly fine for me as I am aware that these people still produce huge amounts of value to the company. However they are not party to some decision loops and are often on the receiving end of architecture and design decisions. Most of them start to complain about that sooner or later, so I ask them to start participating in more meetings... Once being able to put all that into perspective, most of them don't complain about it anymore.
So long story short - most of the time you can't have it both ways in a large(-ish) organization. You can either be the guy who digs a hole every day and someone tells him where. Or you can be the guy who decides where to dig the holes but only get to dig a more moderate amount of holes yourself.
These are the reddit thread ids which have "similar namess". The users behind them have different names and have been active on the network for up to 6 years.
At the end of course the decision will be based on business and market analysis, as even the cloud native foundation abides more or less to the same rules as everyone else does... Introducing LTS for kubernetes however will be a huge step towards pushing it down the enterprise products alley, where software is selected more for the amount of people available in the market, capable to work with it / operate it, and the running costs generated, rather than satisfying an actual need of the business.
Chances are that if your org needs LTS for kubernetes, then kubernetes is not the right solution to your problems. Which is probably the case anyway... but that's a whole different story.