Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:21:28 -0800


> so tell me, marshall.  if it is as you contend, that less attention
> is paid to meeting wg milestones (note that i am unsure of your
> hypothesis), other than the obvious iesg stupidity, ill intent,
> lack of management skill, and black helicopters :-),

randy - i went to great lengths to avoid personalizing my message. in fact, the
amount of value-neutral text i used would make the UN look downright
reactionary, so i would view it as a favor if you wouldn't take this stuff
personally.


> why might this
> be?  i.e., are there other forces at work such as
>   o the ietf, like the rest of the world, has changed, scaling
>     issues, etc.	
>   o there seems to be less pay-off in beating on milestone dates
>   o there are more difficult/important problems in wg management
>   o ...
> 
> i mean the question seriously.  if indeed wg milestones are being
> given less attention than they were in the past, what might be the
> reasons, which are bad and which beneficial, and what might we
> learn from it?

that's really up to the IESG to decide. actions have consequences, as i keep
saying. when, over the course of the last decade, the IESG stopped enforcing
deadlines, the WGs reacted accordingly. there are lots of intelligent actors in
the system, adam smith would be proud.

if it was an explicit decision, then with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, i
fault the decision. if it was "just something that happened", then perhaps this
provides an opportunity for the IESG to sit up, take notice, and decide whether
they want to start caring again.

if the IESG feels that it shouldn't/can't care because of scaling costs, no
perceived payoff, or more difficult problems, then i reply that actions have
consequences and everything has a cost. i suggest that the cost of
ignoring deadlines has proven to be very high in the long-term...

/mtr