Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On mandag, desember 09, 2002 20:35:53 -0800 Marshall Rose 
<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> wrote:

>> So, I think to support your claim that the IESG is not saying no
>> enough you need to look at specific instances where you believe the
>> IESG should have said no and didn't.  I realize that I'm directly
>> asking you to second-guess the IESG.  But you seem to be saying that
>> the IESG should be saying no more.  I don't know how to evaluate
>> whether that is true without looking at specific instances and
>> considering all the factors that could have gone into the
>> decisions--not just the factor of timeliness of progress.
>
> or, one could simply start with harald's stats on the number of wgs with
> grossly overdue milestones and come to a reasonable conclusion about
> whether "no" gets said often enough...

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.

A group of milestones in 1996/97, one left over in 1998, a set in 01/02.

Its main product is OSPF v2, RFC 2328, which is Standard, published in 1998 
(2 years late).
OSPF v6 is RFC 2740, published 1999 (3 years late).

Delivering these two are the first 2 milestones. But they haven't been 
updated.

When last I polled (some 6 months ago, I think), the AD claimed that the 
bimodal set of milestones was a result of a botched charter update (new 
milestone schedules were sent in, new milestones got added, but old 
milestones were not updated), and that a new update would be "forthcoming".

The group has 10 I-Ds in development, which from my 10.000-foot perspective 
seem to be relevant to the milestones not yet achieved.

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?

                         Harald