I believe I addressed most of what you wrote in my reply to Nikita, except
If they do - it's absolutely their responsibility
to defend their proposal
Zeev, this isn't a rule that has been agreed.
We also didn't agree anywhere that the discussions have to be in English,
or that people aren't supposed to use curse words.
The RFC RFC did not attempt to be a comprehensive detailed rulebook for
every little detail or every scenario that may or may not happen. It took
into account that what we already had on internals would continue to
happen. That said - I have to admit that even if I had to do a rewrite -
until recently - I would have never imagined we need to spell out that
on-point feedback should be responded to, and that RFC authors cannot
effectively 'boycott' people whose on-point feedback they don't like. Not
everything has to be spelled out.
But making vague threats to try to influence other contributors is
completely inappropriate behaviour.
This was not a threat of any kind, and framing it as such is inappropriate
by itself. I wasn't "threatening" to have anyone kicked or otherwise
penalized. It was a reminder of one of the ground rules - respectful
discussion and focusing on the ideas and not the people they came from -
and making it clear I have no intention to yield on it. I said that if for
some reason what has been and should continue to be obvious - just as much
as the discussions here have to be respectful (and in English) - is no
longer obvious - we'll make it clear. That's all.