Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Ralph Droms]

I fully agree with Margaret's comments about milestones being a multi-way 
contract.  I've found myself in the position of middle-person between the 
IESG and Internet Drafts authors, with few tools to promote timely 
completion of promised work from either party.

Since we're talking about milestones, would it make sense to include IESG 
milestones in the WG charter?  For example, if a WG agrees to a milestone 
for submitting an Internet Draft to the IESG, the IESG will agree to a 
milestone for completing review (AD review, IETF last call, whatever) and 
replying to the WG?

- Ralph

At 09:26 AM 12/10/2002 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
[...]
>One of the weaknesses of our chartering process is that we view the
>charter as a contract between the AD and the WG chairs, when it
>really ought to be a multi-party contract between the AD, the WG
>chairs and the WG participants.  Participants should be encouraged
>to comment on the charter and milestones, and the document editors
>and key technical contributors should be explicitly "signed-up" for
>the milestones -- placing some of their personal credibility on the
>line.