> In particular I'd be very happy never to see the claim "people only add settings because they're shirking their job of making a decision" again. I don't think

> In particular I'd be very happy never to see the claim "people only add settings because they're shirking their job of making a decision" again. I don't think it's true, and I think it's impolite to make such a claim without justification. Reading carefully, I don't think OP made this claim exactly. I suspect all three of us might agree that there are good reasons to add settings and that we should be careful of adding them for bad reasons. I think in many cases a setting gets added not because an individual /refused/ to make a decision but rather because no individual was /empowered/ to make the decision. I find it easy to imagine a meeting (perhaps a meeting with too many participants) that gets deadlocked on some question and the only apparent way to get out before lunch is to compromise on making it a setting. And maybe compromising the design is the best way to go, but then that's how it will be.