> As I noted, the default reason is always "the author of the RFC failed
> to convince this change is necessary or beneficial". If somebody tries
> to sell you something, you may have some specific flaws to point out and
> may be even be fixed, or you may not be interested in the idea at all.
IMO "You have failed to convince me of the benefits" etc is exactly the
kind of feedback that would be beneficial to authors, and by extension
the wider process.
There's lots of reasons to vote no after all. A vote that is rejected
because the majority of those voting against don't see the benefit, has
a very different future to one where those voting against had a specific
objection that could be fixed with further development.
Ultimately what we don't want is people spending lots of time trying to
fix things which weren't the actual cause of failure, or worse, feeling
fed up and losing interest in future contributions because they've
failed and have no idea why.