General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Keith Moore]

> > But it was often my
> > experience that WGs wanted/needed advice of various kinds from ADs
> > during a meeting, ranging from process issues (what do the rules say
> > about this?) to technical issues (can we get away without a
> > mandatory-to-implement authentication mechanism?) to political
> > issues(is this likely to get past IESG?)
>
> I agree that that's true, but in my experience (both in companies
> and the IETF) is a direct result of a lack of clarity about the
> amount of power being delegated. If people suspect that they will
> be overrulled or chastised for acting independently then they
> generally just pass the buck upwards.

in my experience, some of the need for AD feedback is precisely that -
perhaps due to unclear charters and unclear policies, perhaps because
policies, even when clearly stated, are scattered across various RFCs,
web pages, etc.

there's also sometimes a lack of familiarity with the processes and
rules, both by chairs and by WG members. 

then again, sometimes WGs are just stubborn.  chairs can not always be
trusted to stay within their charters and follow the rules, and it's
not always easy to replace them.