a few of us, myself included, have consistently pushed
back against this accretion. Sadly, most of the time I,
and I suspect most others, have been unsuccessful.
Without Brian's marauder's map the maze of rules quietly
attempting to overrule other rules would be a hopeless
mess. That the "real" rules are sometimes unrelated to
the published rules, or are only documented in expired
drafts and obscure checklists published years ago makes
it certainly interesting to get technical drafts right.
Even the IESG is now having trouble keeping all of it
The decision to abandon the ION experiment was strange,
a BCP or updating an existing BCP takes far more energy
than creating or updating an ION. OTOH a BCP can have
real authority for some time, it is supposed to reflect
a former IETF consensus and survived an IETF Last Call.
the fact is people have routinely routed around what
they perceive as the damage this restiction causes
simply by posting revisions elsewhere and calling
people's attention to them.
Right, if folks have an idea what the purpose of rules
is they'll find ways to break them if necessary. OTOH
if somebody prepared for a meeting using the "official"
draft and asks critical questions, and the editor then
tries to weasel out of that with some "editor's copy"
posted elsewhere, they might find that jabber and audio
can't take snapshots of a middle finger...
worst of all is the inordinate fondness many people
seem to have for all this dreck we've amassed around
Maybe, but we often don't agree on what's dreck and what
makes sense. After some time in the IPR WG I'm not more
90% sure that "worst" WCP 83 is dreck, let's say I'm at
80% now, just an example.