I guess that's fair. Obviously you don't expect full transparency from a high-level execu-type at a major corporation. It would be refreshing to hear someone at that level saying publicly "Yeah, we fucked up. Our hardware and software work, but our competitor figured out how to do it with way cheaper hardware. We obviously can't compete on a per-unit basis, so we're just going to license theirs and stuff it in our vehicles." instead of trying to pretend that they only reason they aren't releasing their technology is that nobody wants it, without admitting that it's an inferior solution.

That was my first thought as well. "We spent ungodly amounts of money to get this to work. It's ready to ship, works perfectly, but we're not going to release it because nobody wants it" just doesn't pass the smell test. I'm going to guess it's more along the lines of they spent ungodly amounts of money to get it 95% done, realized it was that last 5% that was going to double their budget, and then shelved it.

Found one! Do us all a favor and fuck off already?

I think that actually brings out a potential reason to differentiate functional vs non-functional requirements. Am I requiring my house to be blue because I like blue? Or am I requiring it for another reason, like my HOA says it has to be, or some local bird that I like is more likely to hang around a blue house. As your refining requirements it makes some level of sense to group them in such a way that helps determine if they are "negotiable" or not.

Oh, for sure. When I saw your original post my first thought when I say "non-functional" was the "form vs function", but I have more of an analyst brain than a developer brain. And I can easily see where someone with a developer brain (for instance) would see non-functional and read it as "broken". A requirement defining how something doesn't work is silly.

Indeed. You start.

I would tend to agree with you that precise communication is always preferable. But... I've been in countless meetings where some topic needed to be ignored or else the goal of the meeting was never going to be accomplished. So if I want to rescue my meeting I need to assure whomever is picking at the bone that their topic would not be completely ignored. I could either take the time to work out some semblance of what you suggested, essentially doing a 5-minute who,what,when,where "planning meeting" with that person to determine the next steps so they will shut up about it, or I could say "Let's parking-lot that thought" and write it on the board. In the culture of that company/project we all understood what that meant: we're not talking about that right now, but the person responsible for the meeting would ensure it was properly followed up on. To an outsider, or new team member, there's a good chance they'd have no clue what I meant by "parking-lot-ing" an issue, and it would potentially be off-putting if it was said to them.

And I feel like that's the reason why jargon gets a "bad rap". When some corporate weenie you've never shook hands with starts droning on about "synergistic efficiency initiatives that leverage our internal and external team strengths to effectively reduce our end-to-end product cycle turn time" people's eyes just glaze over because it doesn't mean anything. And saying "A good chunk of you are probably losing your job because we're hiring consultants and cancelling half of our projects" generally isn't going to inspire confidence.

I guess what I'm saying is that when someone says to me "let's touch base offline" I 100% understand what's implied: "This isn't the time for this conversation, we'll work out the who,what,when,where, why details later. Now shut up so I can finish this meeting and get back to doing something productive like helping you solve your problem." The jargon just uses a lot less words.

That is somehow exponentially worse than "non-functional requirement". I interpret that as a "would be nice to have" type of requirements around how a device is supposed to function. This potato peeler needs to peel potatoes in order to be called a potato peeler, but it would be great if it also handled carrots.

Obviously there is a desire where you work to separate out the requirements that dictate what something should "do" vs requirements that describe different aspects of an end product. What would you call a requirement like "The house must be blue with white trim"? The house doesn't need to be blue/white in order to function correctly. Certainly a red/green house would meet the "The house must keep me and my possessions dry" requirement, but would not meet the overall desires of the client.

"Non-functional" seems like an apt description to me. I'd agree that on the face it sounds silly, and to someone who isn't familiar with requirements it probably wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. But I can't think of something else to call it that's short and to the point but ISN'T jargon-y. For sure "Aesthetic Requirements" would work to describe paint color choices, but that doesn't cover something like security or maintainability.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but "let's get together later" is just as "jargon-y" as "let's touch base offline". Who is the "Us" in "Let's"? Just me? Does Bob need to be involved? Carol? What does "get together" mean? Are we meeting? Are you calling me? Am I messaging you? When is "later"? Next week? Tomorrow? As soon as this current meeting is over?

Both statements are imprecise jargon.

Do you have a link to this product for, um, research purposes?

Step 1: Deploy the guard under questionably moral and legal auspices. Step 2: Await the expected response of the Citizenry pushing back. Step 3: Escalate the antagonism until the first rock is thrown. Step 4: Fox "News" runs wall-to-wall 24-hour breathless coverage about "Chicago being out of control" demanding "leadership" do something about it. Step 5: President declares Martial Law. Step 6: The House and Senate continues to sit there with their thumbs in each other's asses. The Supreme Court shoves their heads further into the sand. And the balloon that "wasn't there to float" is now a spec on the horizon.

Am I honestly worried that's what's going to happen? No, not yet. I continue to share your optimism in our Judicial Branch doing what they are supposed to do, and that the Military will take their oath seriously. (Congress is already gone. The Dems are feckless, and the Repubs are happy to ride this out through mid-terms.) But I have to say, with time the orange jackass quips about being a dictator, or jokes about a third term, or points out that you don't have to have elections while at war, that confidence shakes just a little bit.

Yeah, that's not how reality works.

You'll get no argument from me on that.

Unfair != illegal, unfortunately. And I wouldn't call the practices "deceptive", if you jump through the hoops the service gets cancelled. I've never run into a legit company that won't cancel a service when requested. Pain the ass? Stupid? SHOULD be illegal? Yes, yes, and yes.

Lol. I'll let you hold your breath on that one.

Yeah, no thank you.

Agreed. Too bad the current administration doesn't.