Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Marshall Rose]

> one of the big problems with trying to switch from a management framework 
> that's been laize-faire (sp?) to a management framework that is more strict 
> according to rules is that there are *always* extenuating circumstances.
> 
> Take the most egregious case on the milestone list: OSPF.
>
> ...
> 
> Obviously the WG chairs think that getting these products out the door is 
> more important than updating the list of milestones.
> Obviously I don't agree with them (since I bothered to complain), but I 
> haven't pushed the issue.
> 
> What do you think should be done *now* about OSPF?

given bill fenner's reply, i think the OSPF situation is moot, but let
me answer your more general question.
    
i'm going to start with an assumption, and it may be a wrong assumption,
and if it is a wrong assumption, someone should correct me.  i'm going
to assume that the IESG never took a vote that said:
    
    "hey! we're going to adopt a laize-faire management framework."
    
if some IESG in years past actually took that vote, then all i can say
is shame on them, because i have no difficulty in laying the majority of
today's problems on that one vote.
    
instead, i'll assume that this has been a gradual process over the last
decade: less attention to milestones, more laisez-faire.
    
certainly in the distant past ADs didn't have problems enforcing
milestones and bringing wayward WGs to heel (e.g., in the klensin,
o'dell, and rose eras).  so let's just say that each year, regardless of
changes to its membership, the IESG starting caring a little less about
milestones and a little more about other things. fine, shifting
priorities is something we'd expect as the organization evolves.
    
my criticism is that the gradual shift towards ignoring milestones has
had a pervasive and perverse effect on the whole system. fundamentally,
i re-iterate my comment in an earlier note about "actions must have
consequences". if WGs don't see effective management, then they lack
an important counter-balance to the myriad of pressures they face (from
work, from home, etc., etc.)

WG chair disappears for a couple of months?  well, no visible
consequences, so no sense of urgency in fixing it.  WG milestones years
overdue?  well, no visible consequences, so no sense of urgency in fixing
it. and then one morning, someone wakes up and asks why is it taking so
long to produce this stuff...
    
to again return to my previous note, i am not arguing for blind
adherence to "the rules". certainly, a WG that is overdue on its
milestones, but is demonstrating a good faith effort to come to closure
should, absent other factors, be given the benefit of the doubt.
    
but ultimately, we expect the IESG to pay attention, apply its
judgement, and manage things, and i suggest that we've been trending
away from that for quite some time...
    
/mtr