Even a "draft" RFC like this one goes through an extensive review process. My own RFC (1697) never advanced beyond Draft stage, but it was still the product of an open process attended by all the major RDBMS vendors.
The stages of "standardness" have been there since the 1980s. Many important RFCs have never gone beyond Draft.
The main note here is more this is an informational RFC, which happens to still be draft, unlike e.g. RFC 1697 which is standards track. For non-standards track the review process can be extremely light in comparison since you're not making any claim there is consensus or official recommendation. For informational you pretty much submit it and as long as the editor agrees it's submitted to the correct category, somewhat reasonable, and formatted appropriately then it will be published. See section 4.2.3 of the aforementioned RFC 2026 (which itself is Best Current Practices, an entirely different group of documents!) for the specific details.
If you wanted to have an equivalently published document on centralisation stating the exact opposite of everything this one does you could have it up by the end of the month without worrying about review.
Thanks, I realized after saying that, that "Informational" RFCs are different from standards-track.
That said, they say right at the top that this is Informational, don't they?
Also, if you did try "an equivalently published document on centralisation stating the exact opposite" of the IETF position, I have a suspicion you'd run into some problems. Wouldn't you? At least some public statements that "that's just his opinion, man."
The main trouble would be you'd need to sell it as sounding reasonable so you'd actually have to have reasoning not just state the opposite for the heck of it.
That said there is nothing wrong with conflicting informational RFCs, they are meant to share information with the community not to convey consensus so it's fine to have conflicting views as long as it sources from differing information. That said it's generally considered better for you and the other person try to come to a common understanding and share that information as one informational document.
The stages of "standardness" have been there since the 1980s. Many important RFCs have never gone beyond Draft.