That would be fine if we had a very active and engaging community. Like we had 20 years ago. But the vast vast vast majority of this community is silent on almost all database matters. The vocal people are a handful of well known members of the community, whose views on many matters are also quite well known.
Sometimes someone raises a point and it gets little or no response. Like assigning an allocation. Often the chairs know from face to face discussions, people want this option. But there is no discussion. In situations like this I've found that a chair needs to drive the discussion. Even if that means making an outrageous suggestion that no one will agree to, but it generates a reaction. From the following discussion we can move forward.
Also sometimes a chair needs to throw ideas out into the community to move the service forwards. The chairs talk with the NCC engineers. We often discuss ideas that no one in the community is thinking about. If the chairs don't then raise it with the community the idea can never be considered.
So either the chairs or the NCC engineers need to be able to put ideas into the public domain, and sometimes drive the discussion to get it started, or technically and socially the database as a product and service just stagnates.
I often take on this role, as well as the devil's advocate to question what others say. I don't see it as pushing a personal agenda. I have no personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me personally if the database evolves or dies. It does matter to the industry and society. I have no employer or financial interest in how the database evolves. I can look at each issue and consider how it fits in with that old saying...for the good of the Internet.
This is one of the reasons why I've put myself forward again as a chair for another couple of years. I hope in that time David can spearhead a new generation of WG chairs. Then dinosaurs like myself (and others) can ascend into advisory positions instead of decision making roles.
Cheers Denis
QED randy