CTV+CSFS: Can we reach consensus on a first step towards covenants?

The ongoing discussion emphasizes the current state and future direction of a technical proposal, urging participants to focus on its technical merits rather than delving into historical debates. The mention of Jeremy and the BIP text alongside CTV history by one participant stands out as a deviation from the primary focus of most comments, which aim to assess the proposal based on evidence or the lack thereof. This approach has inadvertently introduced topics that are perceived as irrelevant to the core discussion, drawing attention away from evaluating comparable approaches within the design space.

Furthermore, there's an expressed frustration towards efforts that seem to divert the conversation to previously settled disputes, which are viewed as unproductive and obstructive to constructive dialogue. The call to avoid rehashing old arguments underlines a desire to maintain a forward-looking perspective in discussions, prioritizing advancements and improvements over revisiting past conflicts. The emphasis is on creating an inclusive environment where all participants can contribute their insights without the discourse being overshadowed by historical grievances. This stance advocates for a collaborative effort to explore and critique the proposal at hand, ensuring that the dialogue remains relevant and conducive to progress.