cause: two teams are discussing who should fix a small bug. here's the response when I press on.
I personally do not want to contribute to this mess, but also have no time to waste on protecting "2 lines of code" against expanding entropy.cause: a team decided to implement a new feature without consulting anyone and put it into the product.
So, if you really believe that <a component> is the right place where to fix <redacted> issues, feel free to change the description in the java code yourself.
Sorry I will not profession in this email.
Sorry for wasting your time with this feature. Only somebody with everyday contact with <software name> can understand value of it, which has been developed during weekend. Also I don’t understand to call something as scientific project, if other products including operating systems have it for decade.
After tech talk about month ago where he was (I don’t remember the exact wording) talking about brave people who innovate. My understanding (may be wrong) was that he talks about <a country> (brave -> innovate), <another country> (not brave -> don’t innovate).
I am also sad that people in <software name> don’t understand what is aligned with priorities and what is not. And accuse us that <team name> is not aligned.
There can be at least three explanation:
- They don’t know what are priorities (unlikely)
- They don’t know what <team name> is doing (then we don’t need to track our work in <something like jira> because it’s wasting of our time).
- They don’t understand what <team name> is doing (it’s my fault I am not able to explain it)