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