The wrong argument
Since the reorg, your teams don't share a definition of done, and it shows up in every technical argument you have.
Two organizations are now one on paper. In practice, each side kept its own definition of 'done': different things count as quality, different work gets rewarded. The Kafka argument isn't about Kafka.
How we'd handle it
We work with both sides to understand what each actually means by good work, before anyone reopens the technical argument. Then we name what's actually driving the disagreement, in terms both sides recognize, and help you settle on a standard both sides can work from.
Where we've done this
We overlapped at IBM, a company big enough to be two. One of us straddled the research and product sides of formal methods, where 'done' meant a published paper on one side and a shipped fix on the other. That meant translating one side's definition of done into the other's, and back.
Recognize this on your team?
Let's talk