I think that the single change most likely to keep WGs on track is to ensure
that they do not have a single dominant participant, eg one who is both chair
author of key I-Ds. The WGs I see most at risk of going round in circles
producing output that falls short of what is needed are ones such.
Some time ago, I did hear an IESG member talk of this in such a way as to make
me think that this was an understood problem, but nothing seems to have
in the two or so years since then.
Perhaps it is an unwritten rule, but I thought this battle was fought
and won years ago. Perhaps you should discuss the specific problem with
the AD and or the IESG. I can't recall the last time I was involved in
a group in which the chair played an active role in authoring. And as
someone who did that way many years ago, I strongly advise against it.
And, of course, I believe that there is more to good engineering than just
engineering eg the right processes.
Ietf mailing list