"trouble maker"

[Melinda Shore]

> What you been telling me so far is that you acknowledge the problem but 
> disagreed with the phrasing of my wordings. While it is easy to say "I 
> dont like the wordings", you can be more constructive by putting your 
> counterproposal.

That's fair enough, although I'm trying to keep a light hand
here.

My view of how the problem should be oriented is this:
Existing IETF processes do not provide adequate protection
against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled
participants.

That said, in thinking about what I've seen happen it's
almost always been the fault of the WG chair when an
individual has become functionally disruptive, so I'm not
sure that this is a process problem as much as an
implementation problem.  Many of the problems you list could
be resolved without process changes by the chairs being more
decisive.

The other thing that concerns me is that I think that the
question of whether someone holding firm is being disruptive
or is a lone voice of sanity is highly subjective.  I've
seen people who lost an argument be disruptive out of
resentment or personal interest and I've seen people who
lost an argument be disruptive because they're right.

Melinda