One form of criticism is indirect, the statement of how a thing aught to be. How it should be.
It is considered politically correct for the most part so it is insidious even in many environments that outwardly foster a positive work culture.
In a technical environment, especially in small companies with limited resources, many expediences need to be taken. The current state of the union is the result of conscious decisions in the past - the best decisions that could be made at the time.
It should be just the way it is. Think about it.
It isn't appropriate to look at the current state of things and say that it should be different.
It's perfectly fine to say that we want it to be different. It's even fine to say that we should make improvements. Both of those statements are forward looking.
The problem is the fine line between a proactive stance on the future and a complaint about work done in the past. Assuming everyone is operating in good faith, the problem is that the context is ambiguous. That some usage is critical taints other usage.
It's safest just avoid using it.
There's an idea that relates should to another similar sounding four letter word. It is a pertinent comparison and thinking of it that way helps to avoid its use.
Don't should on people's work.
