> I do, however, believe there is lots of merit in ... Nobody disagrees with that. What are you talking about? A quick and simple question can also be "natura

> I do, however, believe there is lots of merit in ... Nobody disagrees with that. What are you talking about? A quick and simple question can also be "naturally" followed by documentation. For example, when someone asks about an ambiguity in the doc, they will naturally immediately amend the doc after the clarification. Another example, they will write the code and the own existence of the code will clarify the situation for other users. Some small questions are also not worth documenting. For example: "yesterday you said you will work on X and Y this week, and we are the middle of the week. Today I realize I'm interested in X because it is related to Z, did you started working on it already?". At the end of the week, the information answering this question will not be relevant for anyone ever. > sit together again This is very very inefficient to book meetings all the time at the first simple question. I really cannot see how you are able to work in such conditions where communication is over-burden with so much process. There is pros and cons in a lot of way of communicating. Your position that quick and simple questions are not fit for any purpose is not really realistic, and you now need to grasp at straws to find argument to defend this position. Even if "a hyper-planified communication plan where everything is written down" would be ideal (which is still arguable), I doubt the benefice of it are big enough to be perceptible. > However, if you see the quick and easy questions coming at too high of a volume that it overwhelms the team Which is a dysfunction. You had someone talking about a process that you seems to now agree makes some practical sense, but you call this person "toddler" because of the remote possibility of pushing this process in absurd direction. > I am asking for being mindful of other peoples' times and not advocate for people being at their disposal because of a bad onboarding experience they had. You are calling other people "toddler" based on something that only happened in your head. It's a bit ridiculous to then talk about "being mindful of other peoples' [stuff]". Nothing in OP indicates that they are not mindful of other peoples' times. > The OP is, in a way, advocating for returning back to an old way of working that was deeply inefficient to me and my team, just because they like it, without providing a notion whether his team mates liked it No, OP just said he like one way of working, nowhere I see they advocate for forcing other people to do as they like. On the other side, YOU are calling names to people who don't do as you please. > I am simply sharing the viewpoint ... You are calling other people "toddler". You are now backing up on that now that you have to admit that your initial position was self-centered childishness. Honestly, I think forcing people to work at the office is a very bad idea, but, karmically, for people like you, while I don't wish that upon yourself, you just don't have the ground to complain: you are a self-centered individual that calls other people "toddler" at the first occasion, if you end up with a boss that has a similar behavior and ends up coming up with the bad idea of forcing you back to the office, how can you criticize your boss?