On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:18 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I think Keith is recollecting some experience with WGs where the chairs used the WG document process to run the show without much regard to the WG’s opinions. In that case, I’d say: get new chairs! We don’t need to make the process capable of coping with this abuse.
Grüße, Carsten
That is not always possible. While I am not aware of any AD being a WG chair at present and there are cases where it makes sense for General area WGs to be chaired by IETF chair, there have been occasions where an AD of one area was WG chair in another which made it impossible for that other area to remove him in a case where he was clearly abusing his position.
I would like to see explicit policy prohibiting this practice. It is futile to expect IESG members to risk taking on another IESG member on account of malpractice as a WG chair.
As for the documents, I really can't see how a WG can come to consensus on a document before they see the document. There are some cases where edits can be agreed upon and a nice paper trail created. But those changes aren't the ones that take the time when editing. Change mechanism A to mechanism B is an easy change. The ones that take time are 'section 3 is unclear' because you often end up having to make changes in every other section to fix it.
