Keith> In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably
Keith> exceeding that of any single WG.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just mean that you tend to agree with
the IESG's program of trying to preserve the academic, ivory tower vision of
the Internet against the advance of the barbarians (i.e., marketplace
forces).
Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the
values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine
objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a
properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but
would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable
technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular
vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical
quality.)
Keith> I've certainly seen ... the contributions of "outside" participants
Keith> dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group chairs.
Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF
is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant
input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think
that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long
as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my
personal vision of the future."
Keith> I've also seen working groups drastically exceed, and in some cases
Keith> ignore, charters which were designed to limit the harm they could
Keith> do.
In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not
necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may
place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes
it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the
charter.