[tptacek]

The commenter above constructed a supercilious put-down based on an uncharitable reading of the post, where the most direct and technically accurate response would have required me to cut against the point the post makes, which is that in a showdown between SOC2 and a mature, well-thought-out dev process, the dev process can and should win.

I'm comfortable with what I brought to the thread in response. If you detected contempt, well, you're not wrong. But it's for the comment, not the commenter, who I assume was just having a bad day, like I (in a way) was.

[snowwrestler]

You obviously wanted a more charitable reading from me; please return the favor. I did not set out in bad faith to make you look bad. I read something surprising and took it seriously—dumb me, I guess.

[tptacek]

Miss me with this stuff. You chose the words "honestly flabbergasted", not me.

Part of the ethos of "we're not doing stupid stuff for SOC2" and "we're going to be direct about how this stuff works so other people can hopefully benefit" is assuming that we're all reasonable adults who want to understand how SOC2 works, and aren't looking to score dunks off unintended subtext.

[snowwrestler]

Flabbergasted was how I honestly felt. But you’ve more than adequately clarified where I was wrong.