[johngalt]

How to derail this dynamic early:

"Does this solve a problem we have?"

"Of the top five things that we are trying to build, does this add any of them?"

Often the problem isn't that the new methods/tech is bad but that all the effort spent transitioning to it could be better spent directly attacking the goal in the first place.

[hbrn]

I wish it was that easy.

"Of course it does: engineers will be more productive, we'll have less bugs and better performance. {TECHNOLOGY} has been around for {N} years and getting more and more traction. Do you want us to be ahead of our competitors or not?"

"You need to understand that sometimes you have to sharpen your axe before cutting the trees. Have you heard the phrase 'work smart, not hard'?"

"So essentially you're saying we shouldn't change anything despite having issues (bring up any bug/downtime you had recently). John, sometimes you have to escape the comfort zone and learn new technology."

I once worked with a person who talked like this in front of non-technical founder. I bet he did sound quite convincing, it took me a while to cut through the bullshit.

[hutzlibu]

Those quotes ain't generally bullshit. They are general and generic pieces wisdom - but of course, whether they are really wise, depends on the actual technology and the actual product and the actual problems.

[tacostakohashi]

Yeah that doesn't work with things as hugely hyped as the cloud, agile, etc. Obviously it's a cult and it doesn't solve anything in and of itself, but you're not allowed to say that.

Rather, I'd go for:

"Let's solve this problem we've been having with Azure Cloud Functions!"

"Of the top five things that we are trying to build, let's build them with Agile!"

Otherwise, you are not a team player, part of the problem not the solution, etc. It sucks, but that's politics.