> I think you are making assumptions in the paragraph above that > are symptomatic of why you then perceive yourself as being > mistreated. Strong agreement. > The key problem with your comment/suggestion, stripped of all of > the (IMO) emotional and peripheral comments that followed > (relevant or not), was that it made (or appeared to make) a > blanket suggestion of a change for all WGs without nearly enough > argument or explanation _within the proposal note_ to overcome > the strong presumption that WGs differ sufficiently that no > suggestion about agenda constraints is applicable to all of > them. I note that, while much of the community agrees in > principle that extensive "presentations" in WG sessions are bad > news, ideas to ban them have gotten no traction for much the > same reason. +1 And more to the point (and this is very important context), this same suggestion has been made many times before, with exactly the same long discussion and the same conclusion (i.e,. no consensus to do this, with good arguments for why it's not a good policy). It's a simplistic proposal that just doesn't make sense as a blanket policy. > [2] These kinds of topics in WG leadership and management are > among those that are periodically discussed on the WG Chairs > list and training sessions. For reasons of efficiency and to > avoid various sorts of disruption and attacks (neither of which > is an entirely theoretical problem) that list and those sessions > are limited to WG Chairs (and the IAB and IESG). > time, I've advocated making the mailing list or its archives > available on a read-only basis to the broader community and/or > broadcasting the training sessions on an informational, > listen-only, basis. wgchairs list archive is publically available. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/maillist.html Thomas