(no title)
akhmatova | 3 years ago
Because you missed the crucial qualifying phrase, "every night".
The point of the policy wasn't that one should never, ever go out treat oneself to nice things. But that at some point, it get to be objectively (and grossly) inefficient and, to put it bluntly, reckless.
In fact, most people I know who in fact can afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton every night (when traveling) don't, just as a matter of principle.
And yeah, they seem to also expect you to have a sense for what's called sound judgement, or shall we say business sense. That is, to know (at least approximately) where to draw the line, without an explicit policy for every last expense category.
And if you don't agree with this philosophy (or it isn't basically obvious to you) - then it would seem you probably aren't a good fit for GitLab.
(In the OP author's point of view, that is. The Ritz-Carlton analogy comes from them, not GitLab).
eduction|3 years ago
You seem to think more nights makes it a weaker case.
Travel is brutal, being away from home is brutal. The reason things like the Ritz and first class airline seats exist is that there are people who need to travel a lot and one way to keep them functioning at a high level despite the relentless pace is to provide superb comfort and service.
GitLab can decide to be that kind of company or not but when business travel becomes routine and frequent for one individual it’s dishonest to pretend they should scrimp like it’s their own much rarer leisure travel.
akhmatova|3 years ago
The ability to distinguish between the cost-value ratios of the two categories -- and to understand that yes, even for a large, successful company, unnecessary expenses of this sort do add up -- is precisely the sensibility that GitLab[*] is looking for.
[*] Again, a hypothetical GitLab - the Ritz-Carlton example comes from the blogpost author, and not from GitLab.
nibbleshifter|3 years ago