I haven't followed this whole thread, so this point may have been amply made already, but:
*Phil did not say he was going to violate policy.*
He said he was going to ignore process, and there's a crucial difference. The speculation is that simply doing the right thing, even in ignorance of process, will be in substantial accordance with it (or at least, with core policy) 90% of the time anyway. And for the other 10%, the possibility that the process is misguided or incomplete, and the existence of IAR, ought to about cover it.
(Phil didn't claim those 90/10 numbers; I just made them up.)
Or, for that matter, that offensive that you had to launch into such a bizarre attempt to smear me, including trying to re-air year old dirty laundry...
Is Phil getting smeared now? I can't say I'm surprised. To the process wonk, process is the most important thing there is, way more important than the goals of the project it's supposed to support. Denying or disavowing the sacred process is the most cardinal of sins.
I don't deny that Phil's declaration was provocative. It calls to mind Colonel Cathcart's objection to Yossarian's attitude: "What if everyone felt that way?" But Yossarian's retort is equally apt: "Then I'd certainly be a fool not to."