We often pick on every suggested change and point out every possible
flaw, with different people holding out behind different flaws, and we
get stuck there. There seems to be some assumption, when we do this,
that our current process doesn't also have significant flaws. But the
very reason we're trying to change something is that we *already* have
a process with flaws.
We know that no process we ever come up with will be perfect, and
agreeing to change is a question of deciding what the flaw balance is.
We need to allow ourselves to move from one (known, "comfortable")
set of flaws to a new set, *if* we can come to a reasonable agreement
that we've improved things in a useful way.
perfection is the enemy of good
and adding complexity to overcome objections is an engineer's disease
randy