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
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?