This can be done without it being a burdensome process or weaponized against an individual. Developing a team agreement with the team can be a powerful tool. It's important the team itself is the author, that everyone either agrees with a proposal or will go along with the rest of the team (if they won't, then its on them to form a counter-proposal), and that when the environment changes the team can revise it.
I think part of the issue is that when we, innocent readers on Hacker News, read something like this, we only know part of the story.
So we can't tell which party is the problem, and what the issue is and we end up second guessing the person asking the question.
The advice invariably tends towards finding an objective standard so that the person asking the question can check that they aren't the problem person.