The author suggested that if senior leadership had a development background then tech debt would be easier to get support and resources to deal with. Between the lines I'm reading that the risks are just inherently understood by someone with a tech background.

Then the author suggests that senior leadership without a tech background will usually need to be persuaded by a value proposition - the numbers.

I'm seeing these as the same thing - the risks of specific tech debt just needs to be understood before it gets addressed. Senior leaders with a development background might be better predictors of the relationship between tech debt and its impact on company finances. Non technical leaders just require an extra translation step to understand the relationship.

Then considering that some level of risk is tolerated, and some risk is consciously taken on to achieve things, both might ultimately choose to ignore some tech debt while addressing other bits.

The risk of tech debt is marginal cost of adding features goes up as tech debt goes unpaid.

> If no one asked and no one is on the hook to change anything: Stop talking.

It seems like a matter of knowing who to talk to about what. I don't think the solution is to stop talking to everyone.

Presenting a rationale for something worthy of addressing (need/problem/opportunity) needs to be communicated somehow, and convincingly. In person, in writing, or a simple business case.

From my non-tech background, priorities are fluid, and things that are rationalized as urgent and important are given resources and attention.

If there is someone like the author spinning wheels in frustration, then maybe there's a problem with the organization aligning everyone on goals/objectives/outcomes -> leading to misaligned solutions being raised, and deaf ears. Or, maybe there's no opportunity to raise solutions with the right people.