I can't really evaluate your comment on relevance -- some things do seem to inexplicably bog down, but on others they move usefully and quickly. And the conser

I can't really evaluate your comment on relevance -- some things do seem to inexplicably bog down, but on others they move usefully and quickly. And the conservatism of compatibility really is incredibly important, which I say as someone who'd be happy (and relieved!) to blow away API compatibility (actually to use the API step capabilities already available behind the scenes, at least for ELF). But the part about "numerous groups to create a successor" doesn't really make your case: one of the best ways for things to get into any standard is to have multiple efforts that can be used as experience and starting points for the evolution of a standard. This has already happened a lot in the history of C++