Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[john.loughney@nokia.com]

Hi Marshall,

> 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.

I kind of agree, but I think we are discussing (ultimately) what the
role of the IESG is.  Is the IESG a resource or is it a gate keeper?
I'd prefer to think of the IESG as a limited & valuable resource
to help the process, but more and more, the IESG has become a =
gate-keeper.

> 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.   =20

This would be a good situation to be in.
    =20
> 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...

I don't disagree, I am just wondering how draconian we need to be in =
this.
Perhaps a middle ground of having a WG review process for WGs behind=20
(or maybe still a yearly evaluation of a WG) might help figure out
what is working well and what is not working.

br,
John