> By voting “no,” an established system, one based primarily on trust and respectful collaboration, has been shaken.

I don't get it. If ISO deliberately requires two levels of approval, why should exercising the second level's voting authority be considered a betrayal of trust?

I don't get it either; and have no sides on the fence (been years since I wrote C++; but I have before).

It sounds like there's sufficiently different genuine views here on whether it's right for the standard at this time, and this seems like the process working as designed.

Because they didn’t vote the way the author wanted them to.

That’s not very charitable, but honestly I’ve been trying for five minutes now to find or think up an alternative explanation. And coming up blank.