My 'standards process' IESG hat got put on my head, with the note from Mark
that expressed concern about decision-making by email versus IETF attendance.
There certainly is a tone which would lead one to think that activity at
IETF meetings takes precendence, but I hope that everyone is clear that
this is not, in fact, the actual basis for 'authority.' The IETF attempts
to reach consensus. It often fails at this, so it then attempts
compromise. Academics recognize this as a classically 'political'
process, with the attendant maneuvers to get leverage for one's point
of view.
The safety catch in the IETF is that the management chain (working group
chair, area director, IETF director, and the IAB) are all highly sensitive
to protests that are raised. The still, small voice does not have to get
raised very far to get heard. If the voice is, in fact, just one voice,
it will lose its argument. The standards process requires 'community
interest' in a proposal.
If, however, there is a considerable constituency for the concerns raised
by that still, small voice, then it it entirely feasible that it will carry
the day.
To take the matter down, a bit: If there is a decision by the WG attendees
at IETF which runs counter to the preferences of the FULL IETF, as determined
via email, and if that full ietf determination is forcefull in asserting
its preferred choice, over the one decided at an IETF meeting, then it will
be the final decision.
One person, crying foul, can cause a disruption, but will not cause the
decision to get altered, unless there is a groundswell of support from
the general community. But it WILL get heard.
Dave