Bouricius' article seems to very strongly address every one of Gierzynski's concerns, and then some.
It seems to me that the argument against IRV is narrow and ignores important factors; it's reactive and conservative. It's "anti".
While the argument for IRV is inclusive and constructive; problems were identified and great effort was spent to solve them in a careful and broad way - including checking the results afterward. It's "pro".
I know which way I tend to go: pro.
(BTW: For those inclined to bring up so-called "pro-life": It's just a label cynically chosen to seem positive - when that reactionary movement is virtually always very negative.)