Justin's proposed changes.

[John Curran]

At 15:40 1/28/97, Stephen Satchell wrote:

>In my experience, just one dissenting vote has led, in further
>deliberation, to a solution that not only pleased the lone dissenter, 
>but also proved to be "Aha! insight" to the rest of the committee 
>-- and proved to be far more useful than either the original proposal 
>or the "compromise" that the lone dissenter wouldn't buy.

Presuming the dissenting voter has read the relevant 
background, I would generally concur with the above.

There any times when discussion only generates heat and
light, and such can often be traced to lack of common 
background reading (particular on mailing lists with 
hundreds of participents).

It is sometimes necessary to depart from 100% consensus
at such times, both to make forward progress and to spare
to objector the embarassment of a public dismantling of 
their logic and assumptions.

/John