"Adult supervision"

[Ted Lemon]

> it's when working groups fail to do these things that people (not just 
> in
> IESG) say that the groups need "adult supervision" - because lack of 
> knowledge
> and experience, lack of discipline, irresponsibility, and the need for
> constant supervision are characteristics of children.  there's a 
> reason these
> terms are occasionally used - it's because they sometimes fit.

The problem is that frequently a working group will fail, in some 
person's eyes, to do as you say.   Unfortunately, I have also had 
experiences where the person who says the working group needs adult 
supervision simply has a very, very strong opinion about what The Right 
Thing is, even though in fact their opinion isn't, as far as I can tell 
any more right than any other opinion that prevails in the working 
group.

I have personally had the experience of being told by a former AD that 
a technical solution I was proposing would "kill the Internet".   The 
person making this statement refused to engage in meaningful debate on 
this point, although he was willing to repeat himself at length when I 
didn't accept his statements the first time through.

The WG chair pretty much let him have his way because he doesn't 
personally have time to engage in multi-year debates, and because he 
felt that this particular former AD's opinion was widely shared in the 
IESG.   I gave up too because I also don't have time for all the 
debate.   I don't know whether the WG chair's sense of the IESG 
members' positions is accurate.

Now, it's possible that indeed I am sufficiently stupid that there was 
simply no point in this person engaging in debate with me.   It's also 
possible that I am sufficiently ignorant that it would have been a lot 
of work to explain the problem to me.   It's also possible that this 
person was not open-minded, and thus wasn't willing to engage in a 
sincere debate, or had determined that I was not open-minded and thus 
could not be reasoned with.

Being a participant in this particular debate, I can't provide an 
unbiased statement as to which of these things I think is correct - 
obviously I think I was being reasonable.   What I can say is that this 
process was extremely counterproductive.   I was very disappointed with 
the outcome.

I think it's quite possible for a single determined person to 
completely block worthwhile work that the IETF ought to be doing, and I 
think that's a shame.   This is despite the fact that every encounter 
I've had with a current AD has been highly productive, and I have no 
significant complaints about how any of the drafts I've personally 
worked on has been handled.   Make of it what you will...