We really need to be better at explaining our use cases to the degree that we can be reasonably sure that everyone understands exactly what the objection is. So far we've seen threats to vote against and raise NB comments and it's not clear that there is a consensus understanding why.
It's not surprising that a bunch of self-selected C++ developers aren't too worried about C-compatibility sans context, but if we can actually uncover the context, I'm sure we'd do our best to allay those concerns as much as is feasible.
I also agree with John that proposals don't need to be arbitrarily sent to any number of rooms just in case there's a concern, or spend an unbounded amount of time in those rooms without a fuller explanation.
Let's also not lose context: we're not making just another feature -- this one is almost certain to be used in a car or plane your children will be using in the near future. If there's one thing functional safety engineers are good at, it's making sure they know what version of a language they're using, and it's properly matched to the right compiler. We'd definitely like to not have old compilers silently eat contracts, but there's only so much we can do in the face of a (unintentionally) hostile user.
Aaron, Peter -- is it possible to submit a quick D-paper outlining your case in time for October 5th telecon?
Cheers,