> These two statements are at odds. You first assuming that lack of trust would be the only reason he needs to know what happens next, then go on to outline another reason he and the larger organization would both benefit from knowing more.

But doesn't that same logic apply to whether they need to know the details?

We are arguing because there is an IT maturity line that goes from chaos to corporate and the more like a startup the more it will be like chaos (by design because maturity is too restrictive). So horses for courses. But as the team grows the same lessons get learned everywhere you bring in ex-bigco to implement changes to be more mature. That will include incident management process that will make this situaton routine and not worth blogging about. Probably in a mature process leaders already read the summary and or postmortem if they felt they needed to.

> It's about knowing what your team is up to so you can provide them the resources necessary while also working to remove any obstacles in their way so they can get shit done.

That makes sense - I don't know if that's what the blog post was implying though. Ironically, this blog post could probably benefit from a few more details about what the meeting was supposed to achieve :)