> And if you can’t ask why A stays and B can’t be accepted, that just means you believe your reasoning is always the correct one

What? Why are you saying "if you can't ask why"? I personally can ask "why", there is no problem with that. I have been in situation where I was the lead and I had to say no to someone like Chet and I've done it after listening to him. And I've been in situation where I was the lead and I listen to Chet and Chet had a good point that was useful, and I used this point to reassess my decision, and sometimes I change my plan, and sometimes I did not. And I've been in situation where I disagreed with the lead but said "ok, you're the lead, we should not flip-flop between captains, we need one person at the driving wheel, so I accept your decision". Why are you inventing that it is a problem to me? Can you provide the sentence I've written that led you to that conclusion?

But in the article, in the scenario, the author never ask "why". Chet arrived and said he thinks there is something suboptimal, and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI", and Chet tried to discuss this and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI", and Chet tried to have the author explain why, and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI".

The author __REFUSED__ the discussion. Chet did not even had the opportunity to say "why".

> If you state something and the person in front doesn’t accept it, you ask for his reasons.

It is what Chet is trying to do. Chet does not say "no, you are wrong", Chet tried to discuss this: he wants to explain his argument to know what are the author reason for possibly refusing. Chet suspects that the author does not understand, he tries to clarify, to give example, but the author just refuses.

> You really can’t accept that the author knows about B and have a valid reason to not choose it, evenk if B is completely valid?

Why are you thinking that? The problem is not that I believe the author is wrong about B. The problem is that the author has assumed Chet was talking about B when this is only an unsubstantiated assumption.

Look at what I've written, I've written explicitly:

> You listen to him, and then you still can decide if it's smarter to do it now or not.

If you decide "let's not do B" and Chet says "no, I refuse to accept that", then Chet is 100% wrong.

The problem is that the author decided that Chet was talking about B __before Chet even explain what he is talking about__.

Again, if the author has good reason to not do B, then, I FULLY AGREE WE SHOULD NOT DO B. The problem is that the author is an idiot: Chet tries to talk to him about something, and the author just assumes, without any proof, that it is about B.

> Software engineering is all about tradeoffs. And it’s on the leaders to choose some, even if you really believe it must lean the other way.

A leader that choose between tradeoffs when he __refused to listen to the information__ is a bad leader, and his work will be poor.

Let's take your logic further: why providing any information to the lead at all? The stakeholders approach the lead and say "hello, we would like to have a feature, this will be ...", lead: "STOP! This will be a frontend interface with an animation of a little frog dancing", stakeholders: "what? no, we would like ...", lead: "no, you want that", stakeholders: "but you don't understand ...", lead: "good meeting, byyyye".

Honestly, your position is so weak. My question is "what's the problem with just listening to Chet to understand what he is talking about", and your position is so poor that the only thing you were able to do is to say "no because if I listen to Chet, it means Chet refuses my decision", which is blatantly incorrect.