(The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable; can't really tell if it is naïveté or deception.)
It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable.
Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on the risks that adopting the proposal has.
You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization.
>So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments may be an effective way to engage in the proposal and try to shut it down. The article describes that legal arguments will not be productive.
2. It's not feedback, it's a bug report on something being broken
You don't get a gold star for being like "See, they're listening!" when they allow people internally involved in the project the privilege of having their bug reports heard.
The proposal is de-facto bad. The goals it wants to achieve are bad. There is no "technical argument", just like there's no "technical argument" to being against a proposal that says you must share all your passwords with me. Stop the sealioning.