3 ms·

> Mentioning a few specific issues doesn’t mean others aren’t important. I got that objection enough that I think I failed at communicating my main point. I r

> Mentioning a few specific issues doesn’t mean others aren’t important. I got that objection enough that I think I failed at communicating my main point. I really don't want to encourage a mindset of "if you don't cover every bad thing you can't talk about any bad thing". But I think if you as an organization start to make it an habit to talk about bad things (and three times make a pattern), at some point you have to think seriously about which bad things you want to mention and why. I think there should be a documented process. Honestly, any process at all would be fine, it doesn't have to be drawn-out or rigorous. But it should exist.

dagmx 4y ago
> at some point you have to think seriously about which bad things you want to mention and why. I’m confused by how you think those statements ended up there. Do you think they’re from a single random poster? Or do they just show up without thought? Clearly someone has taken a measured stance in posting about those. If that is the case, then why don’t you also believe they put serious thought into what they posted? Why is the assumption that there isn’t a process within the team? Your argument is based on a flawed assumption.