A typical workflow for standard proposals is: personal repo => incubation venue => official working group
This proposal is so early stage that it hasn't passed the "personal repo" phase just yet.
> Why would anyone with legitimate concerns for unforseen consequences which would occur if the proposal or any descendants of it to turn to a standard would want to be constructive about it? Particularly considering the concern if they want to stop it on the tracks?
"being constructive" doesn't mean being supportive. If the goal is objectionable and you want the work to stop, articulating why it's objectionable is your best bet at getting what you want.
> Why would you not like to get the legal related feedback, don't the legalities dictate technical constraints? Or do you think this would go on with or without being in the legal?
Actual legal concerns obviously get addressed (and doing that goes through legal counsels). But throwing "legal words" into feedback significantly increases the friction of answering it, without increasing its weight or validity. That can decrease the chances of it getting addressed.
This proposal is so early stage that it hasn't passed the "personal repo"
phase just yet.
But I believe you and I have a pretty different understanding about "constructive criticism". I don't believe "non-supportive and constructive" is enough in this case. I don't even believe that to be possible.
You can't "construct" while you want to "destruct".