Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Marshall Rose]

> 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 
> other factors.

john - this is a good issue, and i think it comes down to a matter of
philosophy.

i would prefer to see the IESG provide/enforce a set of general
principles that encourage working groups to be productive, rather than
having the IESG spend a lot of time trying to micro-manage each WG.
(the micro-management part occurs at the front-end when the IESG
negotiates the charter with the folks who want the WG. at that point, i
rely on the IESG's expertise to come up with a reasonable charter.)
    
the "18-month rule" in the PACT I-D is rather subtle in that it focuses
on the ability of a WG to get work product approved by the
IESG. although i prefer that WGs have short-durations with
tightly-constrained charters, what i'm more interested in is seeing that
the WG can deliver something in a timely fashion.  if so, then i'm far
less worried about it misbehaving going forward.

back when I was an AD, very few WGs actually met their deadlines. the
vast majority missed by 3-4 months. as long as those WGs were making
progress *prior* to the deadline, I was happy to argue that the WG
should keep working towards completion.    
    
in general, i agree, arbitrary deadlines are offensive. however, the sad
fact is that, when the system fails, we need some kind of goalpost that
triggers an action...
    
/mtr