On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 08:14, Dave Crocker wrote: > > That other working group is already being not served. Holding a working > group to its milestones makes the situation more explicit. > > Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working groups to > their milestones, why bother to have those milestones? Dave- Milestones are useful not just for the when but also for the what. In my opinion, working group charters have their impact on the quality of the IETF output through scoping what the working group should and (especially) should not do. In the charter discussions I've participated in this is made most explicit through the specification of a set of deliverables (e.g., protocols, recommendations, etc). This is of enormous benefit from a managerial standpoint in that the key players agree a priori on what is in and out of scope and the nature of the work to be done. I'd be very concerned that, if we pushed working groups to deliver faster, the first thing we'd lose would be the review from cross-functional experts. These folks are already very busy but their commentary can be of enormous value. It may contribute to longer development of protocols but probably reduces the mess that would result if protocols interact poorly on the Internet (which, as I mentioned in an earlier email, is my criteria for IETF success). One area I think we can improve is in finding ways to do more iterations between IETF meetings. My observation is that many working groups operate on a four month clock, synchronized with the next face-to-face meeting. I think maybe we rely too much on working group meetings to drive the schedule and to indicate consensus so as to move to the next task. --aaron