ADs who are also WG chairs

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

>however, I don't think you've demonstrated that "the current IETF process
>gives too much power to the wg chairs & IESG", and I'd object to that
>statement.   *somebody* has to decide whether there is consensus, and
whether
>the document is of adequate quality, both within the WG and within the IETF
as
>a whole, and I don't see how decision can reasonably be made by other than
a
>small group of people.

I can see an alternative to decisions by a small clique, it is called
democracy.

OASIS is running just fine using Robert's rules of order. There is thus an
existence proof for the proposition that the IETF top down oligarchy is not
essential for standards making.

Replace the subjective 'consensus' with something objective and measureable
and the need for power to be exclusively in the hands of a small
unaccountable clique goes away.

Of course the untutored masses may make a wrong decision, but they are
already turning away from the IETF to work in other more responsive and
accountable forums.

To date this has been in the area of new specifications and the IETF has
been allowed to retain control of specifications such as SMTP etc which have
not been seen as being in need of urgent revision. This has changed as a
result of spam. Protocol changes to SMTP and/or the messaging formats are
now inevitable. I got laughed at for suggesting IETF as a possible standards
venue.


		Phill