> 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