> > increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of "the best possible > > outcome" is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically > > opposed to, the interests of the larger community. > > I have two problems with this statement. First, while I am all for > being critical of our processes for the purposes of improving them, we > as a group should avoid making these sorts of generalizations. Say what > you will about Dan Bernstein. At least his complaints are specific and > backed up.
Sometimes it's better to be imprecise than to point fingers and name names. However I am seriously considering pointing fingers and naming names. > Second, I believe the complaints that are alluded to have been raised > again and again and again. Can we as a community learn to agree to > disagree on points of architecture, once decisions have been made? Oh, you're talking about *that* group. I had almost forgotten about them. Keith
