The draft of the proposed covenant is out. On a very fast first reading, it seems OK, if one accepts the idea that a covenant is acceptable within the Anglican ethos.
The section which concerns me most is the very last section. It basically suggests that we should seek accord in controversial matters and -- this is a gross simplification -- let the primates decide everything. I understand that the primates would put themselves in power, but I think they might want to contemplate +Rowan's sermon yesterday. If we're going to have a supreme authority, which I wholly oppose, the ACC would be a much more logical choice. But then, the ACC has lay people as constituent members, and when did bishops ever let lay people do anything?
I would welcome reactions and comments from others. This still isn't out on the blogosphere, but I'm sure the opinions will be flying soon. Remember, my reading was very quick.