4 ms·

> It's easy to criticize process, but many of the rules were written in blood with the best of intentions. Respectfully, we already know this part. It's at the

> It's easy to criticize process, but many of the rules were written in blood with the best of intentions. Respectfully, we already know this part. It's at the top of every single thread like this. The more important questions are: * Are all of these rules still necessary? * Are any of these rules more obstructive than beneficial? * Could any of these rules be refactored for a better benefit to obstruction ratio? The problem will not be solved as long as every time it's discussed, it becomes a "should we have any rules or no rules at all" discussion. We know the vast majority were put in place because something prompted them. What's less discussed is how to fix it, or at least stop making it worse.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
> What's less discussed is how to fix it, or at least stop making it worse. Isn't the point of the U.S. checks and balance system that it's basically impossible to 'fix' 'bad rules' that are viewed as beneficial by at least a quarter of the population? Regardless of how 'bad' it's considered by the majority?
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
The problem is that the pro-process people usually have some concrete reason, no matter how bad, outdated or obviously irrelevant for their process. The anti-process people don't have anything because there is no identical control group without the dumb rule.