The concept of "reasonable" cannot be considered separately from the understanding of the status quo. This includes the whole context of the interactions and th

The concept of "reasonable" cannot be considered separately from the understanding of the status quo. This includes the whole context of the interactions and the set of "allowed" requests and outcomes. I understand that the piece was outlined in order to somewhat rule the flood of requests and expectations on both sides in hope of reducing the intensity of conflicts. Reason requires an arbiter, otherwise it's just a conviction by whatever means. Rules and regulations are an arbiter proxies. So the appealing to be "reasonable" probably points to some deficiencies in the current rules, which no longer match the status quo. Say, CS support requests to a team of just 3 may not be possible anymore to fullfill in, say, a week's time as when that team was 5 (the glorious do more with less). Same rules - different status quo. What I'd find "reasonable" is a clear outline of the present deficiencies and mismatches to the current rules. Externalising the status quo and appealing to that. But this would be surely considered "unreasonable" by the overseers of CS Dept. That is politics dictate the reason.