Keith> In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably Keith> exceeding that of any single WG. You must be joking. Or perhaps you just mean that you tend to agree with the IESG's program of trying to preserve the academic, ivory tower vision of the Internet against the advance of the barbarians (i.e., marketplace forces). Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical quality.) Keith> I've certainly seen ... the contributions of "outside" participants Keith> dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group chairs. Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my personal vision of the future." Keith> I've also seen working groups drastically exceed, and in some cases Keith> ignore, charters which were designed to limit the harm they could Keith> do. In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the charter.