This post is not about perfection, but rather about a deep, legitimate frustration that the tech community spends so little time really understanding the proble

This post is not about perfection, but rather about a deep, legitimate frustration that the tech community spends so little time really understanding the problems it sets out to solve. Here's a key paragraph: > I am not solution-oriented. I don’t see a problem and get giddy at the idea of solving it, patching it up and sending it on its merry way. I want to poke it and ask it questions. Where did it come from, what is it doing, what’s its story? I want to take it to tea and hear about its life and understand it to its core. And if, at that point, I’ve come to a wholistic understanding and am able to solve the problem, by all means, let the problem-solving commence! But my instinct is never to solve, but to understand. This is not a statement of perfectionism, but rather a deep yearning for like-minded people who believe in trying to understand the problems they're trying to solve. The RFC process, which has gained more prominence through projects like Ember, Rust, Swift, and Yarn, operate on the same principle: that we should try to make sure we understand, not just rush in with the first solution that comes to mind. Iteration and contact with reality are important. A desire to understand is not in conflict with a desire to iterate and work with communities. But too often, the tech community makes a virtue out of moving fast, breaking things, and never coming to a deep understanding even in many of the most successful cases. I think we owe it to ourselves and our community to get past a knee-jerk reaction to this post.