Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary
In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there'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't apply to your case and then attempt to get approval.<p>For instance, there'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'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's fence<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fen...</a>