But often the failure to accept clues from
"outsiders" causes working groups to do harm
I don't believe this is true, for any normal definition of "often".
"Occasionally" might be believable.
if I look at why working groups do harm, the failure to accept clues
from outsiders does seem to crop up "often". Of course, this is my
assessment (others might read the situation differently) and I can only
make this statement about the groups I've actually looked at, which is
a small and nonrandom sample.
One could just as easily argue that such filtering would decrease the
tendency, because people would modify their behavior to subscribe to
groups they cared about.
You're incorrectly assuming that people with clues have the time to
subscribe to and follow every single group that might do something
Also, one could just as easily argue that
working groups are just as likely to be harmed by distracting comments
You could argue that. I haven't found it to be the case.
The occasional rejection
of #2 messages can be very harmful.
Seems more likely to me that the amount of harm would be lost in the
normal noise of ietf processes.
Some noise is more harmful than others. Some WGs have more potential
to do harm than others, and those are the very WGs that need outside