[erikhopf]

All valid points. And having been at Amazon for two stints, I think it's fair to say that it really depends on who's reviewing the PR/FAQ.

I did review this PR before Werner published it, and can say that in this specific case, attributing the quotes to anyone for public release was not allowed. However, I would definitely expect the name of a real person for any quote in a PR/FAQ I was reviewing internally.

[russellbeattie]

Those aren't valid points!!! That wasn't my message at all. They're idiotic nitpicking points from non-technical managers whose only job is to pedantically edit PR/FAQs as if they mean anything. And each manager has their own opinion about what should or should not be in one.

That document is perfectly fine. It clearly expresses both the idea and the business value of it, which has obviously been borne out by the unmitigated success of Lambda.

The whole company has become brainwashed by moronic MBAs. The amount of stupidity I dealt with writing and re-writing PR/FAQs has taken years off my life.

The only real message my comment has is to show the poor suckers still working at Amazon the bullshit that they should expect when writing one. Thank all that is holy I never have to deal with those idiots ever again.

[erikhopf]

Some of these points are valid though. Because you should to some degree challenge the author to simplify where possible.

Does it get out of hand. Absolutely. But calling out when a PR/FAQ is too technical is valid. Some details belong in a design doc (or elsewhere).

However, I agree with you that the intent should be to deliver a good product. Not to nitpick someone into an anxiety spiral.