OnePay Reviews

As an individual contributor, I feel neither empowered nor entrusted to do my job. Engineers are subject to a lot of policies and process automation. Those policies usually impose barriers to productivity. The process automation is often unreliable and undocumented. Constant integration has had very low reliability for the past 18 months, but management has not sufficiently addressed it. (A merge request usually takes multiple tries over days to a week or more to successfully make it through the merge/deploy pipeline.) Access to data or tools needed to troubleshoot issues is often restricted, especially for production, but in some cases even for development environments. There is a group responsible for shared software frameworks and infrastructure. Neither are documented, and communication with the group requires logging a Jira ticket. Colleague reviews are not sufficient for code changes, as all code changes must be approved by management. There are multiple layers of management, but little transparency into business, policy, product or design decisions. Engineering and company all-hands rarely if ever address known issues (such as the CI problems). Vendor and architecture decisions are generally made from the top down, without advance involvement of the engineers who will implement them. The legacy ONE team self-proclaims their software stack as "opinionated." It uses a paradigm and framework that, even after 18 months of working in it, seems like an impediment to clarity and simplicity. It has a steep learning curve for new engineers and often makes simple things complicated even for experienced engineers.

-We move too fast without any strategy -Org changes without any announcement or detail from leadership -Leadership doesn't care about your expertise and they only want you to fulfill their desires. Timeline or strategy be damned -Leadership has unrealistic expectations -We don't take the time to learn from mistakes -The churn is high here. They burn everyone out quickly