Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

john.loughney@nokia.com john.loughney@nokia.com
Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:36:18 +0200


Hi Harald & Marshall,

> The IETF may be better off if we do this. But - it's work.
> Imposing a new rule without doing something about the old groups that =
don't=20
> feel bound by the rule will be seen as unfair.
> Imposing a new rule on old groups will require a significant  amount =
of=20
> legwork - some of which will be seen as "meaningless bureaucracy", =
some of=20
> which will receive some degree of sympathy.
>=20
> How should the transition be managed?

So, one part of the PACT document I disagree with is the setting
of experiation dates on WG.  What I'd prefer to look at is seeing
why WGs miss their targets, is it due to inexperience in target
setting, divergence from the charter, WG / Chair sloppiness or=20
other factors.

I do think that some way to enforce discipline in WG is needed -
whenever new WGs start, there are many people who treat it like
a land-rush and start setting-up homesteads for the own protocols
(which may have nothing to do with the charter).  Also, a fair
amount of brainstorming goes on and it is very easy to start off
in a new direction, which may only have tangential relation to
the original reason for creating the WG.  In many cases, the
WG chair acts as an arbitrator / fascilitator while the ADs are
the disciplinarians.  Perhaps this work split needs to be examined
more, so that WG chairs can enforce WG discipline better.

br,
John