Jon, I'm still following the idea that this is like a group discussion in a table with pencils or dinner plates.

In this table some of us are volunteers that join the discussion, and give some ideas probably based more on subjective criteria than scientific data indeed. However, this is also our value: we come, bring some ideas with the best of the intentions, and then you (the ones in the table fully dedicated to this piece of software) evaluate, contrast, survey, test...

With my reply I wasn't trying to invalidate your point about trying options, gathering data, etc. On the contrary, I'm as convinced as you that this is the way to work. However, we cannot expect from volunteers and other occasional contributors to invest all this research before sharing an opinion. The full-time maintainers and experts are in a position of clear advantage here. Each one is valuable in our own roles.

The thread you started has produced and recovered some interesting ideas. I'm looking forward to the next steps.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 5:39 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
This is an incredibly spurious argument. You're manipulating the meaning
of data to fit your own purposes.

(...)
 
That
kind of specious reasoning? The anti-pattern is your behavior here.

Sorry, but the behavior in your reply constitutes an anti-pattern of collaboration in a friendly space. No bug or feature or difference of opinions justifies it. Please, let's be friendly, or at the very least respectful. 

This thread seems to be exhausted indeed. I'll look for the continuation... hopefully in Phabricator, getting into tasks and details.