That had the second person in it, it's just obfuscated with less-than-clear language. "The motivation" belongs to, and is exclusively controlled by, the second person.
It can have* the second person in it. It's up to the otherperson if they want to answer in with their motivation, or the team's motivation, or explain that they weren't told the motivation by <owning person/team>.
It gives me a lot of information about the person answering, and the problem at hand. For example, if it was a team motivation I can follow with "and what are your thoughts on it?". If it was "my motivation" I can follow with "and what does the team / <so and so> think of it?". If they don't know the motivation, I can follow with "Who can we talk to, to find the motivation?" help them learn this is an important part of being a great software engineer.
Anyways, it's just my preference, regardless if it "technically" has the second person in it. Your milage may vary.
No it is not. The motivation and choice belong to some person, the grammatical "second person" refers to you especially and no one else. Sure in some situations there is no one else who motivation and choice could be attributed to, but in many there are. Anyway this is about a rhetoric trick: avoid attribution to the person you are addressing to reduce the chance of them going defensive, denying responsibility, trying to wiggle out of blame, and instead answer the actual question. In a more general sense avoiding such details increases focus.
That had the second person in it, it's just obfuscated with less-than-clear language. "The motivation" belongs to, and is exclusively controlled by, the second person.