> I don't think they even tried to read the ISA spec documents. If they did, they would have found that the rationale for most of these decisions is solid: Evid

> I don't think they even tried to read the ISA spec documents. If they did, they would have found that the rationale for most of these decisions is solid: Evidence was considered, all the factors were weighted, and decisions were made accordingly. Nevertheless, the ISA speaks for itself. The goal of a technical project is to produce a technical artifact, not to generate good feelings having followed a "solid" process. If the process you followed brought you to this, of what use was the process?