Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary
In BigCorps, if there&#x27;s a stupid requirement, there&#x27;s usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn&#x27;t apply to your case and then attempt to get approval.<p>For instance, there&#x27;s a restriction at my workplace (not a software company, a regular old industry fortune 500) which prevents git installs from pushing to any non corporate GitHub repo from our work machines.<p>The obvious reason it exists is to prevent people (a lot of who are analysts or data scientists - not professional programmers) from shooting themselves in the foot by pushing code to their personal repos in error.<p>It&#x27;s annoying to work around if you need to say push a contribution to an open source project and you could rage at the infosec for enforcing it - but it obviously exists because stupid errors would have happened.<p>This principle is also called Chesterton&#x27;s fence<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fen...</a>