Emphatically disagree on all counts.Again, any WG that is doing this should be shut down, or at least suspended.This statement oozes so much lack of clue that I don’t know where to start. For information, a WG is there to get some work done. Even if you accept the premise that the way work gets done in certain WGs is suboptimal, the way proposed here to handle this perceived deviation is totally out of line. There is a reason most civilizations got rid of Sippenhaft. But the premise is so uninformed that I’ll shut up now before I violate more of the rules for posting to this mailing list.
For your information, a WG is there to BUILD CONSENSUS. NOT to
"get work done" by rigging the process to favor some particular
interest.
Any work done by a wg that effectively closes itself to general participation must be considered tainted and not representative of any consensus. The only way to "fix" this that I can see is to (re)submit all work done and decisions made to general review by the wider public, with sufficient time for that review, AND to replace the process facilitators who allowed the process to be rigged in the first place. And one possible outcome of that re-review MUST be to discard all or part of the earlier work. Anything else is allowing, even encouraging, IETF's processes to be rigged.
Keith
