It's typical of engineering organisations to come up with this kind of list, the main reason being that as an industry we're uncomfortable with experience, seniority and progression. We're collectively suspicious of it. We want to codify and clarify it, endlessly. We demand the right to define it but when given the chance we always set the bar unrealistically high.

To recognise someone as a Principal Engineer, they should be definitively and objectively exceptional in every way, right? Their depth of knowledge in all technical areas is unmatched, they deliver innovation, domain knowledge, expert teaching and mentoring, strategic vision. They're growth hackers and also they design and deliver timeless systems and ever-green architectures. They're research scientists, and also inspiring leaders who (with no formal seniority) are able to align large groups of engineers via respect alone. How else can they be deserving? I wonder, does any other discipline in the org require this?

Whenever we come close to settling on a sensible way of recognising the value that experienced engineers (that are well connected to the domain and the business) can bring, it takes only a few years before that route is smashed by a new iconoclastic bunch of thought-leaders.

The parts of the org that are outside engineering now just let us get on with sabotaging ourselves.