I left Google in 2022, but I remember seeing the beginning of this. The system that got built up to do all the things Google wanted to do -- previously "simple" things, orchestrated on raw hosting (Borg) -- got too big and complex. (Partially because it was too flexible, so too many projects did too many unique things, and running them grew difficult to match.) So they started adding abstraction layers, to make it "simpler". (Which as always means the common/easy case got easier, and the rare/difficult case got harder. The team I was on at the time couldn't use the new thing for (most) of what we did, because our needs were incompatible. But we did enough other compatible things that I started learning about it/using it.)
(Personally I'm sure it's doomed to failure. But partially because most all technology operates in cycles/like a pendulum. The abstraction layers will grow too onerous and limiting, and the solution will be to dive closer to the metal again.)
you are right. made worse because there's an internal rule that you can't ever have two versions of a library in the monorepo ant the same time. it has to be one giant CL for the entire migration company-wide.
KR stands for "Key Result". They're definitely not "things you do to achieve your goal".
That's kind of the point of OKRs (in theory): To stop upper managers from dictating process to lower managers. (Which is a big problem.) Instead, ignore their process and evaluate them on how well whatever process they chose delivered. IE, give someone an objective, let them find their own solution, and evaluate them on only how well it worked.
OKRs in practice look suspiciously like waterfall software development. When you find yourself assigning ICs programming tasks by economic quarter, you've f-ed up.
