[nmalaguti]

Someone once said to me that RFC stands for Request For Comments, not Request For Consensus.

It is an opportunity for you to get important feedback about aspects of the plan you might be under-informed about and make sure the relevant parties are aware of what is happening.

After feedback, you may decide your plan was flawed and needs adjustment, but just because there is disagreement doesn't mean you need to change your design to fit everyone's needs.

[JoshTriplett]

I do think consensus forms a critical part of the process. But consensus does not mean unanimity, and not every objection requires changing the plan to accommodate it.

An RFC should seek to articulate the key constraints, surface every unique point of disagreement, and address every one of those. Sometimes, addressing such a point may involve changing the proposal; other times, it'll involve providing a considered and thoughtful response that amounts to "no, and here's why not". That may lead to someone dropping the objection on further consideration, or refining their concerns in an effort to better articulate what they value that they feel the proposal doesn't deal with. And occasionally, even after that, the answer may remain "no", and the objection will stay on record as disagreement with the consensus.