> The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people
> and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Has this a real importance? The control is by IETF as a whole, _if_ rough consensus is the rule. What is expected from ADs is to make sure that what is proposed meets a rough consensus. This could possibly include commenting their concerns before the Last Call if they feel it necessary. This may include their advise. They should however _never_ consider anything else than consensus. If they have other concerns they should join the WG.
Technically astute people and egocentric fools are usually both out of consensus.
The only thing expected from IETF as a whole is a permanent consensus never to prevent technically astute fools' solutions from developing outside of the IETF until they may be understood and possibly accepted by its members as part of their consensus. This is why, the IANA registry and Best New Practice question is so important.
May be a solution would be to consider an Internet Innovation Task Force to serve as an astute fool's test bed. The rule there would not be consensus but the most astute solution, by participant votes. If you consider Source Forge, it works de facto in this way.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf