On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
>> The rationale is why the voters voted the way they did, which can be
>> determined by the discussions on the list, the proposals made, and any
>> individual rationales they included in their ballots.
>
> The fact that people concur in a result doesn't mean they concur in the
> rationale.  If you look at U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there are only
> two results (affirm or reverse), but it may happen that no one opinion
> (rationale) commands a majority, or even a plurality, of the justices
> who voted for the majority result.  We cannot, on the basis of the sort
> of evidence you mention, construct post hoc rationales and assert that
> they are the views of the WG.

People want to know why we made the changes we made.
It's condescending and rude to reply "because that's how we
voted."  There were many rationales involved, and the most
helpful service we can do for the community is to summarize
those rationales to the best of our ability, and document (as
we already have) how the process works.

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports