by mikhaill on 1/20/25, 6:02 PM with 168 comments
by asoneth on 1/22/25, 10:02 PM
0. This idea is bad.
1. This idea is probably bad, but if someone wants to put together a more compelling argument we will discuss it at a future meeting.
2. This idea needs to be more fully developed before we can decide whether it is good or bad.
3. This idea is probably good, but it will remain in backlog limbo until someone makes a compelling argument that it is a priority.
4. This idea is good, and while it is not a high-enough priority to displace our current tasks, we will actively discuss including it when we plan our next sprint/release.
Depending on who you work with these may need to be gussied up with manager-speak to let people save face or to prevent people from hijacking the agenda to turn the meeting into a brainstorming session. But treating all of them as synonymous with "no" loses useful nuance.
by gopalv on 1/22/25, 9:11 PM
1: Don't worry, nothing's going to happen.
2: Something may be happen but we should wait and see
3: Maybe we should do something about it, but there is no clear action
4: Maybe there was something we could've done, but it's too late now
Stringing along a bunch of people who think they are being heard and listened to when you are not is a morale killer when the tide goes out & we see who's been swimming naked.
by idopmstuff on 1/22/25, 9:27 PM
In all seriousness, the best thing is to have management that clearly communicates what the high level company goals are on a quarterly (or whatever cadence is appropriate for your business) basis. People don't like to hear no, but they understand "the main objective for the quarter is to close $X in new deals in Y market segment, and since this isn't going to directly contribute to that, it's not going to be a priority in the near future."
by baazaa on 1/22/25, 10:50 PM
One reason they persist in their insanity is everyone is an expert in giving excuses why their own team is too tied up with work to assist. Sure this reduces conflict over telling middle-management why their ideas are stupid, but in the long-run it's detrimental to the organisation to avoid explicitly hashing-out disagreements. Creating a culture where everyone lies to avoid hurting one another's feelings is not good.
by karaterobot on 1/22/25, 11:09 PM
by extr on 1/22/25, 9:25 PM
by barryvan on 1/22/25, 11:14 PM
Inside a company, I don't think there should be space for these sorts of responses. I can see these only being necessary/used where people are disenfranchised and not involved in setting or understanding the overall product priorities. But then I've always seen the PM's prioritisation role more as an expert mediator than a dictator...
by pm_details on 1/22/25, 10:19 PM
In practice, there is no easier way to annoy these types than by taking these platitudes at face value. Don't go gathering the data.
(I get why this style of communication has become common in business settings, especially in large orgs. It still rubs me the wrong way.)
by iamleppert on 1/23/25, 1:55 AM
by kylecazar on 1/22/25, 10:20 PM
Food for thought, don't make someone say no as often.
by Uptrenda on 1/23/25, 12:22 AM
by flappyeagle on 1/22/25, 10:53 PM
by gamerdonkey on 1/23/25, 10:55 PM
by exodust on 1/23/25, 6:44 AM
Nothing wrong there, it's not "no". Sometimes we put ideas on ice until there's time, or other factors align.
If your role is long-term, you have the underrated power of long-term planning. Often in past I saw the desire to tear down and hastily build something amazing in a few weeks, rather than chip away long-term where "amazing" gradually fades into view.
This one time, I was asked to make a countdown timer for new website launch, back when I worked with PM's who thought users gave a shit about website launches.
by sitkack on 1/23/25, 1:24 PM
I am not sure what this site adds other than the ability for the uncreative to find snarky ways of telling people to fck off.
/s some, some PMs try and build product, most are large corps are figuring out how to segment their niche and extract max rev from the tech ladder
Nearly the entirety of this discussion outlines political and organizational dysfunction.
by anticorporate on 1/22/25, 10:37 PM
Blah blah blah the interests of the business. Fuck that. Capitalism sucks the joy out of software.
by Terr_ on 1/23/25, 1:17 AM
You'd think "it does X, Y, Z, and nothing else" would be clear-enough, but in practice a blanket prohibition is too vague to have force, it's an invitation for scope creep. So saying "it will not handle W" is useful, even if it seems redundant at first glance.
by kerblang on 1/22/25, 11:13 PM
by gatkinso on 1/22/25, 10:15 PM
by mr3martinis on 1/22/25, 9:28 PM
by mberning on 1/23/25, 1:00 AM
by Kalanos on 1/23/25, 3:34 AM
by datadrivenangel on 1/22/25, 9:08 PM
by jewayne on 1/23/25, 1:14 AM
by christblais on 1/23/25, 1:55 PM
by sasaf5 on 1/23/25, 3:52 AM
by tzury on 1/23/25, 8:14 AM
Assuming a PM cannot comprehend entire roadmap, vision and details in their head, simply have the answer based on merits.
This is the intercom post from 2013 on the same topic - https://www.intercom.com/blog/product-strategy-means-saying-...
Anyway, copied the "reasons" here in case you want to use it locally. e.g.
## bash:
shuf -n 1 why-not.txt
const sampleData = [
{ "text": "Let's add that to our discovery backlog" },
{ "text": "What problem are we trying to solve?" },
{ "text": "That's an interesting perspective for our long-term roadmap" },
{ "text": "Let’s park that idea for now" },
{ "text": "That’s worth considering once we have more resources" },
{ "text": "We should validate that with users first" },
{ "text": "Can we revisit this after the next sprint?" },
{ "text": "It’s a great thought, but let’s prioritize our current goals" },
{ "text": "I’d like to hear more thoughts on this from the team" },
{ "text": "Let’s circle back after we’ve tackled the core priorities" },
{ "text": "We need to ensure alignment before moving forward" },
{ "text": "That might be more relevant in the next planning cycle" },
{ "text": "We should let this marinate a bit longer" },
{ "text": "Let’s pencil it in for further discussion later" },
{ "text": "Let’s table this for now" },
{ "text": "That’s a good thought, but let’s revisit it later" },
{ "text": "Let’s keep this in mind for future consideration" },
{ "text": "We’ll need to assess this in the context of our current objectives" },
{ "text": "Let’s put this on the back burner for now" },
{ "text": "Interesting idea, let's explore that next quarter" },
{ "text": "We should prioritize getting feedback from stakeholders first" },
{ "text": "This might be a phase two initiative" },
{ "text": "That could fit in a future roadmap iteration" },
{ "text": "We’ll need to revisit this once we’ve hit our milestones" },
{ "text": "Let’s gather more data before moving forward" },
{ "text": "I think this could be valuable down the line, let’s revisit then" },
{ "text": "Let’s schedule a follow-up on this when the time is right" },
{ "text": "This could be part of a larger initiative, but let’s hold off for now" },
{ "text": "Let’s focus on the immediate deliverables first" },
{ "text": "We’ll circle back once we have more clarity" },
{ "text": "We already finalized our OKRs for H1 but if you throw it in the backlog maybe we can get it prioritized in H2 planning"},
]by harrall on 1/23/25, 7:01 AM
by swiftcoder on 1/23/25, 9:18 AM
by pietroppeter on 1/23/25, 12:52 PM
by rqtwteye on 1/22/25, 11:33 PM
by stalfosknight on 1/22/25, 10:15 PM