OK I was wrong about Brawn as stakeholder, but how exactly Ferrari was different than Mercedes? Maybe Ferrari had better TP than Brawn? Also isn't TP responsibility to operate under given circumstances? It's not that he needed to contact board every time Nico or Schumacher were set to do a pit stop etc and Mercedes surely was lacking in that area.
Also aren't you suggesting that Honda built titles winning BGP001, not Brawn?
I wasn't saying that Brawn was either a good or a bad Team Principal. My comments were about the fact that the success/failure of the team may have been impacted by the structural arrangement and that this may have been preventative to Brawn managing things the way he would have liked which makes it difficult to make a proper judgement. There were a number of comments in the thread about him not being a good Team Principal for various reasons and I was presenting the alternative to that.
My comparison to Ferrari was based on the fact that it was often said that a crucial part of the success of the Todt-Brawn-Schumacher period was that Todt put the right people in the right places and gave them the freedom to do what they needed decision-wise. He had the backing of Montezemolo to do this. Just to be clear, I wasn't crediting Brawn with that arrangement because Todt was Team Principal then, but using it to highlight a system that works and pointing out that Brawn was part of that structural arrangement and would have known that it worked and I suggested it would have been surprising if he took a different approach himself.
It's my personal opinion based on what I've read that Mercedes has more parent company interference. With other teams in the past this sort of interference has been highlighted as a reason for their lack of success.
My comments weren't really related to the race weekend but to the overall progress of the team. IMO it's harder to allocate responsibility for individual things and my assessment is therefore based on the overall picture. Brawn was Team Principal when Honda built the billion-dollar car so I give him some - not all - but some credit for that. It was also said at the time that Honda had allowed Brawn more independence than they had with Team Principals in the past, so I think the parent company can be slightly more divorced from decisions surrounding that car.
However I think the same can said about race weekends - that they weren't necessarily as bad as it appeared. Their pitstops in 2010 were IIRC on average the fastest in the pitlane. While some of their strategies appeared questionable there was also the other side of the equation was that they were prepared to take risks to get a better result. I have often wondered if it was the drivers who were unable to pull off the strategies (which is a difficult thing for me to say given I am an enormous Schumacher fan). Brawn also showed he had lost none of his nounce when he backed Schumacher's move at Monaco on Alonso when the Safety Car went in, which although the stewards ultimately decided was illegal, had merit given green flags were waving and had the stewards accepted it Schumacher and Brawn would have been lauded.