Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Marshall Rose]

> 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.

erik - you'll get no argument from me that good milestones (or a good charter in
general) is fundamental toward a successful WG experience.

philosophically, i favor WGs will smaller goals that, after they demonstrate
credibility (finish spec, implement product, sell product, buy ferarri) can then
come back, and get re-chartered to build on their earlier work.


> 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.

interesting. i just don't know if we can measure the IESG's bandwidth. i sort of
favor having the WG chairs apply consistent pressure to their ADs to get WG
output reviewed in a timely fashion (and certainly the tracker will help with
this), but i can see your point about putting the iesg in the milestones...

the only question is what does it mean to "cut the charter of the IESG"?

/mtr