I wrote these a few months ago and now seems like a good place to post these.
TW: self-deprecating and dark trans-woman-in-tech humor.
(Modelled after excuses made to management, product and end users):
- A woman, but not entirely up to spec 
- A woman, but with some technical debt.
- A woman, but next releases are going to be a lot more accurate.
- A woman, but released with some P1 bugs.
- A woman, but she doesn’t pass. acceptance tests.
- A woman, at least according to project status
- A woman, at least as written in the documentation.
- A woman, but we had to maintain backward compatibility with the previous release
- A woman, but maybe we could try a reconfiguration
- A woman, refactored from an earlier release
- A woman, but after a product pivot
- A woman, but maybe we should integrate the user testing feedback
- A woman, after we finally have resources from the M&A
 That one prompted a fun exchange with one of my friends:
she replied: “the spec is needlessly restrictive.”
I replied: “That’s the problem with RFCs, one writes ‘MAY’ or ‘SHOULD’ and the public thinks it’s a ‘MUST ”
Then she replied: that’s a shame as we lose some of the intended use cases this way
The next installment of the monitoring series should be up in the next few days.