what you are doing is bad for the resistance, it makes us to look weak and irrelevant, leaving bitcoin defenseless
Why? Bitcoin is so resistant to changes that sidechains should be introduced by no-forks, because they won't be accepted as a soft-fork. And this proposal is also a no-fork, so you can think about it in the same category as HD wallets and similar BIPs. Bitcoin is so resistant to changes that hard-forks are practically impossible to introduce, soft-forks are very hard to introduce, and you complain that Bitcoin is "defenseless"? The strongest defense is just sticking with what we have and rejecting any new proposals. And you know that people can always do that, and it will only escalate, so more no-forks will be needed to change anything.
It was a more general complaint regarding OP's extreme practicism (as I see it) not any specific topic. OP doesn't like questioning BIP322, feeling an obligation to implement it in a rush.
As for sidechains, well I'm a fan as long as they are not deviated from basics, for instance I wouldn't contribute to RSk because they have adopted Turing completeness which is inherently vulnerable, for instance check what is happening with Ethereum: only 2 or 3, besides Vitalik's Foundation, are in charge. Just check what the rock star says:
At the moment of the merge, you will have two [separate] networks […] and then you have exchanges, you have Oracle providers, you have stablecoin providers that are kind of deciding in a way, which one they respect.
It is what happens when you have Turing completeness and smart contracts full-blown, corporates decide everything, the decide who is allowed to fork or not to fork. The hilarious point about the situation with Ethereum is the fact that Vitalik and the gang are forking, not the other side!
It is what I believe in bitcoin to be colonized as its side chain, almost the exact same bitcoin, I mean.