I'm currently trying to get some folks on the same page regarding the most basic of things in a design document, and the passive resistance is just astonishing to me.
Just adding the following text seems to upset some people:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
It's like they don't want to be pinned down to an exact meaning in design documents! And don't even think about trying to "force" people to use a style guide like RFC 7322, or even an authoritative list of initialisms, acronyms, and abbreviations.
Is it too much to ask to have people use the same term to refer to a project, environment, component, etc? It saves so much time when you don't have to spend effort tracking down what someone means when they say "stage is broken".
This has already gotten too rant-y but it burns my butt so much! So much wasted effort!
Just adding the following text seems to upset some people:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
It's like they don't want to be pinned down to an exact meaning in design documents! And don't even think about trying to "force" people to use a style guide like RFC 7322, or even an authoritative list of initialisms, acronyms, and abbreviations.
Is it too much to ask to have people use the same term to refer to a project, environment, component, etc? It saves so much time when you don't have to spend effort tracking down what someone means when they say "stage is broken".
This has already gotten too rant-y but it burns my butt so much! So much wasted effort!