> It feels like in this instance the reflexive reaction of the developers is what made the passing of the proposal more likely by putting the committee in a psychological position where they're dismissing large amounts of feedback, making them more likely to throw out the proverbial baby.
Thank you for putting that into words. That's what I was initially trying to express when I talked about "mudding the water", but the second paragraph sorta took my train of thought in a different direction.
I can't help but think that if there weren't so much discussion about the syntax, and consequently so many people willing to throw their support behind any alternative proposals merely because they avoid that particular syntax, some of the more substantial concerns about this proposal might have gotten a bit more consideration due to the higher signal-to-noise ratio.
Thank you for putting that into words. That's what I was initially trying to express when I talked about "mudding the water", but the second paragraph sorta took my train of thought in a different direction.
I can't help but think that if there weren't so much discussion about the syntax, and consequently so many people willing to throw their support behind any alternative proposals merely because they avoid that particular syntax, some of the more substantial concerns about this proposal might have gotten a bit more consideration due to the higher signal-to-noise ratio.