The meetings of the RADEXT WG are openly publicized and are available to anyone (including people who are not physically present). Presentations and agenda items are openly solicited. If you would like time on the agenda of a physical or virtual meeting, all you need to do is to post a message to the WG list and your request will be honored.
In your initial message (see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html) you requested guidance as to whether it would be better for the work on IPv6 access to proceed with a draft focusing on an initial set of attributes along the lines of the original submission (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00), or whether a combined submission would be preferable, along the lines of the -01 submission.
That is exactly the issue that is now under consideration within the Consensus Call that has been issued. As noted in the virtual interim minutes, David Miles has suggested that the focused approach would be more likely to result in rapid progress, and other participants at the Virtual Interim agreed with this suggestion.
Since the IETF operates on "rough consensus", it is the duty of the Chairs to engage the WG participants on issues such as these, rather than making unilateral decisions.
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:57:04 +0100
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as chair of this WG.