People like you acknowledge and understand the engineering trade-offs. Which you might smirk at, but is true nonetheless. If there is only one example of you not being op's Pete is that you tell your boss about the reality of the situation.
The OP's Pete I have met many. It is exactly as described.
> The OP's Pete I have met many. It is exactly as described.
I don't think they are different, or at least that far apart.
I have a couple of Pete stories of my own. The last one I had a manager wanting a year's worth of work released in 3 months to meet nice-to-have deadlines. I explained that it was impossible to meet that requirement, but I offered an alternative solution that delivered a MVP in a couple of months but we would still need a year of intensive manual intervention alongside development work to get the system running. I repeated over and over the technical debt. He accepted the tradeoff.
After I delivered the MVP, that manager completely axed any follow-up development work and replaced it with four more ambitious projects. Now we have engineers wasting a few days of work per month doing manual maintenance tasks on top of project work because actually finishing the MVP is no longer in the roadmap.
Here's the kicker: what would happen if I left the company? Would I be singled out as the scapegoat for the MVP being a mess that's missing critical features? Would I be blamed for the project not working as presented by the manager to higher ups? Would I be vilified by the engineers tasked with doing grunt work for something that could be easily automated if a team worked on it for a few months?
People like you acknowledge and understand the engineering trade-offs. Which you might smirk at, but is true nonetheless. If there is only one example of you not being op's Pete is that you tell your boss about the reality of the situation.
The OP's Pete I have met many. It is exactly as described.