If we are to change the process that produces this stuff, we HAVE to understand what the reasons are that reasonable, competent people produce things that are sub-par, broken or "crap". And IMHO, we can't do that without saying what these unacceptable results of the process are.
[...]
I don't think anonymous, class-based criticism will get us much further. We need to be specific about what our problems are.
To me it seems that the IETF can't make up its mind: are RFCs just drafts that don't expire, or are they hugely important documents that must be absolutely perfect before they are published?
The problem is version control. We're engineers. That means we are, more so than mere mortals, doomed never to get anything right the first time out. However, the RFC publishing model doesn't really allow for incremental changes: you have to write a completely new RFC, which then gets a new number that has no relation to the original RFC.
What we need is a way to add information to RFCs whithout the need to rewrite the original RFC or make the new information a full-blown RFC of its own.