[gct]

One of those that thinks everyone owes them explaining everything to them in every detail or its not "right".

[sublinear]

I'm confused by this take. Explaining things in full detail shouldn't be a chore for a reasonably competent leader.

It's just basic due diligence, and it's worth reviewing details when these topics come up. Maybe the new ideas aren't always fully baked, but they may have a point. Regular discussion is just part of the job.

[gct]

This person admits he drove people to quit with his behavior, that goes wayyyyyy beyond trying to get the full details. I've worked with this type before and I can envision the cold sweats in the office as he comes around to hold people hostage explaining every micro-detail of their work until he understands it.

[sublinear]

Would you not admit the corporate world is full of people who probably should find something else to do?

I agree that hostility is not acceptable, but there are some people who take everything the wrong way when asked to perform. I get why it's threatening, but it is what it is.

I didn't take anything away that led me to believe the author was being hostile. He was asking for more effort than some might expect and they couldn't handle it. I don't really know who is right in that situation. What I do know is there are a lot of people who don't take work seriously enough and hide behind HR.

[MrDarcy]

There aren’t many situations where expecting everyone to explain everything in every detail is correct, but there are some.

Many of those situations where it is OK are down at the foundational level of the internet itself, which is what linode and Drew DeVault were concerned with back in the day.

An example today I’m wrestling with is TLS interception (valid) vs protecting against TLS man in the middle attacks. It’s tough to get people to see it’s an either or situation, they truly are mutually exclusive.

Unless, we walk together through every painstaking detail to reach the necessary conclusion together.

[zdw]

The TLS issue mentioned can be more easily conceptualized if you view the root CA lists as "The people you're OK with MITM-ing you".

And then whether your trust in the browser vendor coalition to push back against and punish even accidental CA malfeasance are reasonable.

[MrDarcy]

The crux of the issue is reasonable people can disagree on what is OK at a large org.

Security, like every human, believes they’re the good guys.

Platform teams cannot enforce the principle of least privilege.

Truly a paradox.

[computerfriend]

I feel like I've been in the same position as you. I ended up not being able to convince those who mattered so I left. Hope you have better luck!