Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>  wrote:
 > Begging pardon, folks, but I've noted that the pattern of implementation
 > for things like this seems to be:
 > 
 > - someone thinks it's a good idea.
 > - A discussion gets underway and beaten to death, with no clear decision
 >   made.
 > - The discussion dies off since nobody can come up with anything new to
 >   contribute to it.
 > - The ensuing length of silence is mistaken for consent.
 > - The good idea gets implemented, and when objections are re-raised,
 >   the objectors are instructed to see the archives.
 > 
 > This is kind of how /etc/rc.d came into being, and although I don't disagree
 > with its objective, I'm not terribly fond of the method by which it was
 > "agreed upon".

So why do you think most developers are afraid to propose  stuff on
tech-*?  Because of precisely this.  Developer proposes something.
Lots of smart people plus lots of ignorant loud-mouths talk about 
it.  It's impossible to reach consensus because there are those in
the community who will disagree for the sake of disagreeing, or 
because they like the sound of their voice.  Finally, developer gets
frustrated, throws up arms and goes back into the forest.

6 months later, it's re-evaluated and decided there were no sound
technical reasons against the implementation, and it goes ahead.

You're dreaming if you think we're ever going to reach any sort
of consensus in tech-*.

I'm not directly or indirectly classifying you into either or both
of the above groups.  This is just an observation.