> The unfortunate reality of IETF processes, concerning working groups, is > that we tend to pay rather little attention our documented rules, > nevermind the documented philosophy of the organization. (John Klensin > has been diligent in repeatedly pointing out aspects of this.) > Charters do not conform to requirements. Milestones are not met. Area > directors take the position that they embody community expertise, > including about market need. IETF meetings are less inclusive, by virtue > of ignoring cost issues for those on a limited budget. And so on. Indeed. For instance, some WG participants insist that the need for backward compatibility with a non-standard protocol that has a trivial installed base and has not been shown to work well, somehow trumps well-established IETF requirements for protocol quality. And somehow, all of these WG problems are IESG's fault. If WGs run amok, it's IESG's fault for not keeping them in line. And yet if IESG tries to ensure success of a WG by limiting its charter to avoid a harmful result that a WG contingency is clamoring for, or if IESG tries to rein in a WG that is getting out of hand, IESG will be seen as exceeding its authority or abusing its power. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf