Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Sam Hartman]

>>>>> "Marshall" == Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> writes:

    >> 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.

    Marshall> or, one could simply start with harald's stats on the
    Marshall> number of wgs with grossly overdue milestones and come
    Marshall> to a reasonable conclusion about whether "no" gets said
    Marshall> often enough...

I think this illustrates the fundamental difference we seem to be
having.  Having a lot of groups with outdated milestones is bad, but
it is not infinitely bad and I believe should be weighed against other
factors.  In the case of the OSPF group, I don't think shutting down
the group because their milestones were outdated would have been at
all appropriate.  I don't even think that demanding that the
milestones be updated or the group be shut down would be in the best
interest of the community.

In short, I don't believe saying no in that case is the right answer.

I strongly suspect that enough of the other cases have similar
circumstances and the best interest of the community is not served by
saying no.

--Sam