It's an argument for vigorous, not-personal, dialectic in design and planning meetings. It should be OK to make your best case. And it should be OK to get skept

It's an argument for vigorous, not-personal, dialectic in design and planning meetings. It should be OK to make your best case. And it should be OK to get skeptical questions about your case. Or to hear an equivalent case for an alternative. It's an aggressive and competitive take on what a healthy collaborative environment should look like. I've seen other approaches, but, to be honest, they sort of exchange the aggressive for the passive-aggressive. A key line in the post: > ...an even slower way to uncover problems than argument is implementation. The thesis is that it is expensive to avoid argument or doing it in an incomplete or lackluster way.