Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Henning Schulzrinne]

> There are also some "in between" choices, between ignoring the
> situation and killing the groups, such as re-chartering the groups
> with a more limited and realistic charter, replacing the chairs of
> non-performing groups, etc.

I suspect that having a 'state of the IETF' overview at each plenary 
that lists, by name, all the working groups that are on schedule and 
those that are seriously behind would help. Basically, have a list of 
red, yellow and green WGs, according to their performance. If nothing 
else, we then have some idea on whether the mechanisms we implement are 
having some effect. If working groups had to explain, in a public place, 
why they are behind before they update their charter schedule, 
transparency would increase.

Given a volunteer organization, people have to make a choice to 
contribute. People tend to contribute more if they get the feeling that 
somebody notices or if non-performance matters. They can also more 
readily explain their commitment to management ("if I don't get this 
document edited, the whole thing may be canned or somebody else will get 
assigned to the task"). As I mentioned, when 3GPP bore down on SIP*, 
lots of people suddenly managed to commit all kinds of time that they 
didn't have before.

I would find it, frankly, more useful than listing the number of 
Enterprise Numbers that have been assigned in the last three months.

Henning