>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> Being ready to explain decisions (or positions) is fine. The
Scott> problem was the word "justify". When do we know that a
Scott> decision is justified? Who decides? That's an undefined
Scott> metric. WG decisions are explained, and critiqued, all the
Scott> time, by everyone.
I view justify and explain as synonyms in the text I proposed.
If people are OK with explain but not justify, I would support
publication of the document with that substitution.
I realize I may be in the rough regardless; I'm just stating my position
in case it is useful to those making a consensus call.
my problem is that by removing justify and not replacing it with
something like explain, then I see that as an active failure to get
consensus that a WG should have to (explain|justify--remember I don't
see a difference) the perpass implications of its architecture.
Without community agreement in favor of that, I think we have no
meaningful commitment to perpass mittigation.