Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Margaret Wasserman]

>If we kill all the WGs that have more than 1 year since *promised 
>delivery* of a document, the following WGs die (in roughly chronological 
>order):
>
>OSPF FTPEXT IFMIB RIP VRRP MANET TN3270E PIM ISIS MSDP DNSOP DHC PPPEXT 
>SMIME IPCDN MBONED DNSEXT RMT IPSRA SYSLOG IMAPEXT MOBILEIP MPLS KRB-WG 
>WEBDAV ITRACE ACAP CALSCH ATOMMIB LDUP TSVWG CCAMP APEX IMPP OPENPGP TLS 
>MSEC STIME L2TPEXT SEAMOBY BMWG IPV6 MAGMA PILC MALLOC ZEROCONF EOS PRIM 
>MULTI6 IPSEC TEWG FAX

I think that this may actually be more indicative of a problem with
our chartering process and our milestone maintenance than it is with
the progress of these WGs.

>(and yes, we have already instituted sending people warnings about their 
>expired milestones once or twice a year. Helped a little....not much.)

I think that active management might be more successful in getting
these groups to update their charters and manage towards their
commitments than the automated warnings.

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.

Margaret