Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

Erik Guttman erik.guttman@sun.com
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:08:17 +0100


Harald, Marshall,

If the IETF rules insist on updated milestones in order for
groups to stay chartered, be sure the milestones will be updated 
regularly.  If milestones have to be met or items will be dropped
from the WG charter, be sure milestones will be more modest and we
will hit them more often.

I would have welcomed this discipline in the WGs I have chaired
(SVRLOC, ZEROCONF).  These WGs were not phenomenally successful.
Either we should have been able to induce enough focus, commitment
and resources to meet our objectives in a timely way, or we should
have been shut down.

I believe we would have behaved differently had there been a
rule setting boundaries both for overall time and allowed slippage.

I agree that exceptions occur.  But I do not agree that every
situation is an exception.  We need rules to increase the pace
of our work, to bring discipline and realism to our charter
milestones, and to empower if not demand that the IESG to apply
the scalpel.  I agree with you, Marshall: Exceptions must not
be the rule.  They need strong justification and should come up
for regular review.

Remember our university experiences.  Getting top grades was a
voluntary exercise.  Our ambition set the goal.  But it was the
hard deadlines that put the fire under our butts to actually
get the work done.

----------

A related point and suggestion:

In my experience WG completion delays arose in no small part due
to very slow and vague IESG reviews and worse - document action
black holes which took months to clear up.  This has improved,
though only recently.  Novel suggestion:  I think charter deadlines 
should *accomodate time required for IESG review!*  The IESG should
not charter more than they can actually review.  The IESG should
then meet these commitments.  What do we do if the IESG cannot
meet them?  We would have to cut the charter of the IESG.

----------

Erik