1.) The issue I was pointing out at was that one of ideas has to pass much different standard then the other. You are looking at differences only in one place, not at the other.
B being faulty does not imply A being correct. B having small problem does not imply A does not have even bigger problem.
2.) What I mean is that people conclude that you play politics with rules. You don't put your ideas under the same rigorous test. That is where disengagement typically starts.
Then it makes sense to go either your way or my way, but depending on politics of the situation (who is going to be responsible, who is stronger politically). How I think your idea would be had it gone through the same test should be factor, but if that part runs without you. It does not make sense to play one sided questioning game for the person you are negotiating with.
Your idea can make the project fail too and from the point of view of the other person, was not really tested. And then if you are accountable I drop my idea and let you do your thing. If I am accountable, you did not done nothing to covince me you are right.
Through it is also unlikely that the project would fail of a single reason. So I don't think the documentation would be much of the threat. We write minutes from non conflict non hostile meetings all the time, so it does not sound like much would be changed. Not that it would be used the way you suggest often. Unless other person works in some kind of toxic company, they are fine explaining their reasoning to manager. It is quite likely they discussed your questions even before they decided to disengage.
B being faulty does not imply A being correct. B having small problem does not imply A does not have even bigger problem.
2.) What I mean is that people conclude that you play politics with rules. You don't put your ideas under the same rigorous test. That is where disengagement typically starts.
Then it makes sense to go either your way or my way, but depending on politics of the situation (who is going to be responsible, who is stronger politically). How I think your idea would be had it gone through the same test should be factor, but if that part runs without you. It does not make sense to play one sided questioning game for the person you are negotiating with.
Your idea can make the project fail too and from the point of view of the other person, was not really tested. And then if you are accountable I drop my idea and let you do your thing. If I am accountable, you did not done nothing to covince me you are right.
Through it is also unlikely that the project would fail of a single reason. So I don't think the documentation would be much of the threat. We write minutes from non conflict non hostile meetings all the time, so it does not sound like much would be changed. Not that it would be used the way you suggest often. Unless other person works in some kind of toxic company, they are fine explaining their reasoning to manager. It is quite likely they discussed your questions even before they decided to disengage.