That's more telling about problematic mechanics in your org than about jQuery itself.
Did that convincing developer have more influence than the rest of the team? Why the PM was involved in implementation minutiae?
From what I've seen people tend to complain about office politics usually when they don't grok them. The not grokking part is often a choice stemming from a conviction that code monkeys > managers because "engineering". Following your example, who then has more influence over technical decisions? (at least in your somewhat disfunctional org?)
At that company (small agency), at that particular time, the structure was flat, and this was isolated to a project he was leading. It was raised in a developer meeting, where I said the point was that libraries shouldn't have hard dependencies, not that (in 2014) we should be ditching jQuery and writing vanilla JS, especially on projects that needed legacy browser support. He ignored me, and the project ran over by months and causing the company to make a loss.
Company issues aside, he wasn't the only developer to not RTFM at the time, and the site was shared across the web by people calling for the death of jQuery when it still had a very legitimate use.
Did that convincing developer have more influence than the rest of the team? Why the PM was involved in implementation minutiae?
From what I've seen people tend to complain about office politics usually when they don't grok them. The not grokking part is often a choice stemming from a conviction that code monkeys > managers because "engineering". Following your example, who then has more influence over technical decisions? (at least in your somewhat disfunctional org?)