On 8/19/2013 8:01 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
The repeated assertions of "This has been discussed already" are in effect "shut up", but slightly more polite. I complied until last call. As was recommended by wg chairs.
There is a fundamental difference between telling someone to shut up and asking the person to familiarize themselves with the group's history before speaking up.
It's a question of who is being required to carry the primary burden for making their case. In the current circumstance, the burden is on the person lodging the concern, namely you, rather than on the group.
The alternative is, effectively, a denial of service attack on the group's progress, by requiring that it be (potentially constantly) required to re-visit old and resolved topics.
Since there is, in fact, an extensive -- possibly even complete -- public archive of discussions, placing the burden on the person lodging the concern is singularly reasonable.
As others have attempted to point out, this reduces to requiring that someone raising a concern during the last call start with the group's context and, therefore, either point out what the group missed or explain how it assessed reality incorrectly or otherwise made a problematic engineering choice.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net