> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Keith Moore > or for that matter _Atlas Shrugged_? (not that I agree with Rand on > everything, but she had this one pegged) I beg to differ, the Middle ages demonstrated amply that the vast majority of the populace are not going to complain if Atlas decides to take a break. If Atlas expects gratitude then more fool him. Today there are plenty of people who are pretty much demanding that Atlas take a break and they show absolutely no sign of being concerned about any consequences, nor do they display any capability to recognize those consequences already apparent. If Atlas refuses to take a break some of them are quite prepared to murder him the way the Atheneans murdered Socrates. I have no problem with placing the onus on those making a proposal to pursuade the IESG that the proposal is understood and articulated in a coherent fashion. I do have a problem when the pushback is of the form 'I have a bad feeling about this' with no further explanation or 'I want you to cast this proposal in a form that promotes deployment of my pet project'. Where I do have a very serious problem is when dealing with a WG chair who is clearly using his position to promote his own predjudices above the group consensus. As a matter of practical experience this situation cannot be dealt with when a WG chair is also an AD, even if in another area. The AD of the Chocholate area is not very likely to remove a WG chair who is also the AD of the Strawberry area. Doing so is going to make is much more difficult for Chocholate AD to work with the Strawberry AD on the IESG in a collegial manner. I think that there needs to be an explicit prohibition on ADs also being WG chairs. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf