Of course there will be differences. That's why you sit down and plan things together, pulling in and coordinating with all _relevant_ stakeholders. Of course not the whole company.
But the attitude needs to be "let's put the requirements on the table and see what we can do" instead of "you don't get what you want unless you give me a good reason". The latter comes from an angle of distrust which I'm arguing against. The former comes from an angle of collaborative problem solving.
In a company in which I go to a team relevant to a project and like to engage in a discussion and am met with an attitude of "unless you give us a good reason we'll stop talking to you", the atmosphere is not one that will keep me personally for long. YMMV.
> I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding.
You are free to believe what you like. Opening a reply with such a sentence is pretty sad though. It does not foster a healthy atmosphere, nor does it match reality, I might add.
> compared to just giving the DB 250GB of space so this never comes up again?
As long as there is reasonable confidence in that this is actually the case, then just provision the space and be done with it. That requires a certain understanding of future space requirements/expectations, and anything even just so slightly running away / leaking space will hit any limit given enough time. So, due diligence requires looking at whether it's actually needed.
We are not in disagreement here. Bouncing off ideas and thoughts is a good thing.
The way this was phrased was more from the angle "who knows what these guys were thinking; if they can't give me a good reason, no way they will get storage space as I don't trust that they make good decisions on their own".
That goes down the same conspiracy theory rabbit hole like claiming that all state employee bureaucrats just try to bloat their dept. to have more power which ultimately wastes tax money.
Some people have standards and want to do good. Some of them work in Hollywood. And some of them in your city's administration. Not everybody is as selfish and unethical as portrayed here.
Maybe it reflects on the person expressing such theories though.
So, you are not expecting that your co-workers have good reasons for what they are doing? Maybe the hiring bar at your place is too low then.
I prefer to work at places where my default assumption is that everybody around me is smart and responsible. Lifts lots of worries off my shoulders (and tends to benefit the stock price over time too and thereby my income).
I'd guess the worry is that once you increase the storage, you never decrease it again. Ever. It's a one-way street. So, once everything is 5x over-provisioned, then the services tend to fill that space anyway (cause why not be wasteful if it doesn't cost anything) and a year later you are in the same seat again.
I'm not saying this is real, but the worry certainly is.
But the attitude needs to be "let's put the requirements on the table and see what we can do" instead of "you don't get what you want unless you give me a good reason". The latter comes from an angle of distrust which I'm arguing against. The former comes from an angle of collaborative problem solving.
In a company in which I go to a team relevant to a project and like to engage in a discussion and am met with an attitude of "unless you give us a good reason we'll stop talking to you", the atmosphere is not one that will keep me personally for long. YMMV.
> I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding.
You are free to believe what you like. Opening a reply with such a sentence is pretty sad though. It does not foster a healthy atmosphere, nor does it match reality, I might add.