Ram: Brett gave you the benefit of the doubt on whether or not your comment was *intended* to be antagonistic.  Brett's comment was giving you the historical context for why it isn't documented, but said nothing about what we might do now.  In fact, his use of the term "historically" implies that we could re-evaluate things now if we wish to, whether or not he meant that.  You could have given him the benefit of the doubt.  I know that is often hard, though.  I've reacted negatively to a comment often enough myself that these days I try very hard to think two or three times about what the most charitable interpretation could be, and what the best way would be for moving the conversation forward in my response even if the other party really is being antagonistic.  I've found that this works well more often than not.

But yes, it is good for us to be reminded periodically that we should think about being welcoming any time we respond to a contribution.  (On the other hand, you aren't exactly a new contributor, so Brett may have assumed he could take some shortcuts in speaking to you.)

Also, you will find in *every* community that there is a tendency to "defend the status quo" (and we're explicit about this), so sometimes you do have to mount an argument for changing it.  That's just human nature, but is also something I've been trying to train myself to be aware of (I'm still working on getting better at both of these :)