I think you are making assumptions in the paragraph above that
are symptomatic of why you then perceive yourself as being
mistreated.
Strong agreement.
The key problem with your comment/suggestion, stripped of all of
the (IMO) emotional and peripheral comments that followed
(relevant or not), was that it made (or appeared to make) a
blanket suggestion of a change for all WGs without nearly enough
argument or explanation _within the proposal note_ to overcome
the strong presumption that WGs differ sufficiently that no
suggestion about agenda constraints is applicable to all of
them. I note that, while much of the community agrees in
principle that extensive "presentations" in WG sessions are bad
news, ideas to ban them have gotten no traction for much the
same reason.
+1
And more to the point (and this is very important context), this same
suggestion has been made many times before, with exactly the same long
discussion and the same conclusion (i.e,. no consensus to do this,
with good arguments for why it's not a good policy). It's a simplistic
proposal that just doesn't make sense as a blanket policy.
[2] These kinds of topics in WG leadership and management are
among those that are periodically discussed on the WG Chairs
list and training sessions. For reasons of efficiency and to
avoid various sorts of disruption and attacks (neither of which
is an entirely theoretical problem) that list and those sessions
are limited to WG Chairs (and the IAB and IESG).
time, I've advocated making the mailing list or its archives
available on a read-only basis to the broader community and/or
broadcasting the training sessions on an informational,
listen-only, basis.
wgchairs list archive is publically available.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/maillist.html
Thomas