1. Org‑as‑code is possible but still a work‑in‑progress idea
Many users point out that the concept can be built with existing IaC tools, but it is not yet a mature, battle‑tested solution.
“I built this around GitHub as the identity provider … while also being able to use users public ssh keys to (re)provision services to get them access automatically.” – mhitza
“I wrote this post some time ago, and more recently built a thing to do roughly this for my small business… it works for me, at my small scale.” – danielrothmann
2. Existing systems already cover most of what org‑as‑code promises
Several commenters argue that LDAP, Active Directory, ERP, or policy‑as‑code tools already provide the functionality, so reinventing it is unnecessary.
“This is not a bad idea but this person basically reinvented LDAP. Everything he wanted to do is already in LDAP, much already in Active Directory.” – conception
“It is essentially the same as what the article describes… but the reality of it is messy and not so easily defined.” – squeefers
3. Human‑centric reality limits a purely code‑driven model
A recurring theme is that companies are ultimately people, and their emotions, informal knowledge, and messy day‑to‑day work cannot be fully captured by code.
“A company is more than the function of its org chart… If you boil someone's actual job down to a HR job spec and assume that will suffice… you'll produce absurdly long HR job specs and still fail to capture the entirety of someone's role.” – philipwhiuk
“Managing those expectations and feelings can only be done by other humans that feel empathy… abstracting such relationships onto something that can be versioned, queried, tested, and automatically verified might create a shitty soulless place to work.” – jesucresta
These three threads—practicality, overlap with existing tools, and the human‑centric limits—dominate the discussion.