attempts to exclude people from WGs (was ADs who are also WG chairs)

[Keith Moore]

] > basically any bias you add to the selection of people who are  at the
] > table will favor somebody or another, and the fact that the bias  exists
] > can be used to try to get a competitive advanage. 
] 
] Ah, so because there is no 'perfect' alternative that satisfies Keith there
] is no choice but to accept the current situation where the only people with
] any say are the IETF establishment.

there is no IETF establishment, Phill.  a randomly-selected group of people
gets an opportunity to replace half of IESG and IAB with whomever they wish 
every year.  to the extent these people continue to serve, it's because
this random group feels that they're the best ones qualified to do the job
that are available.  

not that this has anything to do with your attmepts to exclude valuable input
from working groups, but it sure sounds good to blame the establishment,
doesn't it?

] I prefer a partly flawed selection than the current situation where only the
] WG chair gets to make any decision according to whatever process he chooses
] and then the IESG and IAB refuse to intervene so long as the abuse takes
] place in accordance with the 'process'.

so we've got a problem with the process by which WGs are run, or the process
by which appeals are made, but you want to  blame the management.  never mind
that changing the management won't help as long as the process is flawed.  of
course, it's always easier to demonize people or groups than to actually
understand or solve difficult problems. 

] Again, either you open up the IETF process so that everyone has a say in the
] outcome or we will find an alternative venue to agree standards.

in the current scheme, everyone does have a say in the outcome.  and yet we
all acknowledge that the process has serious problems - that's why we're
having this discussion.  in a nutshell, the fact that everyone has a "say" in
the outcome is insufficient to produce results that are technically sound and
earn broad consensus.  somehow I don't think that raising the bar to entry,
as you are encouraging us to do, will improve things.  it might create the
appearance of consensus but it will make the IETF's output even less relevant
than it is now.

] There is no divine right by which the IETF is the only arbiter of Internet
] protocols. If the IETF refuses to be open and accountable it is not going to
] be allowed to be part of the standards decision process.

and there is no divine right by which you are the arbitrer of what is open and
fair.  but if you want to leave the IETF and cause trouble elsewhere, feel
free.