Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Marshall Rose]

> >>>>> "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  Having a lot of groups with outdated milestones is bad, but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 the group because their milestones were outdated would have been at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.

well, we disagree. the problem here is that you're assuming that the
group would just get shutdown with zero warning. nothing should ever
happen with zero warning (i'm the "predicability guy", remember?)
    
let's s/OSPF/FOOBAR/g for a moment.
    
if the FOOBAR WG is years overdue on milestones. my first reaction is
that someone ought to take the AD responsible for the FOOBAR WG to the
woodshed and perform an attitude adjustment.  "years overdue" is
unacceptable. it borders on dereliction of duty in my book. (obviously,
if the AD responsible for the FOOBAR WG just got the job, then there's
no need for this admonishment; instead, they should relish the challenge
left to them by their predecessor.)
    
if the FOOBAR WG is months overdue on milestones, then the AD should
have a candid conversation with the FOOBAR WG, preferrably in person and
ask what the problem is. the AD should explain that the AD wants the
FOOBAR WG to succeed, but that the FOOBAR WG is also taking up bandwidth
that could be spent on other WGs.
    
it may be the that the thing to do is to revise the milestones, and
there's certainly no harm in doing that providing that the AD gets the
sense that the FOOBAR WG is going to work diligently in that regard.  in
addition to updating the timeframe, this may also result in removing
some milestones further out. let's face it, the FOOBAR WG needs to
rebuild its credibility with the rest of the IETF.  regardless, updating
the milestones should be done there, in real-time, so the AD can go back
to the IESG and ask for its renewed support of the FOOBAR WG.
    
it may be that the thing to do is to shut the FOOBAR WG down because
it's become dysfunctional. in that case, the AD has to be very clear as
to the reasoning, and be sure to give the FOOBAR WG an opportunity to
explain why that shouldn't be the case.  continuing this discussion at a
plenary might be a good thing (not so much for the FOOBAR WG, but to let
the rest of the IETF know what's going on and how serious the situation
is).
    
it may be ... a lot of things.... this is where i expect the AD and the
IESG to use their judgement instead of blindly applying "the
rules". but, what i feel compelled to insist is that the IESG pay
attention and manage things.
    
and, let's say that the WG does get whacked. there's still an appeal
process to the IAB to get the thing re-chartered.
    
when you say "shutting down that group because their milestones were
outdate" is inappropriate, i disagree because i think you aren't
considering that this suggests a much bigger problem. if all that's
required is a little tune-up here or there, then sure, let's update the
charter and send them on their way. but, the FOOBAR WG can't get the
energy to update its charter, then this probably indicates a much deeper
problem, that, if left uncorrected, will result in a bad outcome for the
FOOBAR WG.
    
/mtr