Dave,
You described the charter as a contract between the WG and the rest of the IETF. I'll argue an alternative below, but let's stick with contracts for the moment. My basic understanding of contract law tells me that there are certain real world and legal limitations on contracts that must be considered:
1. A contract requires due consideration from all parties, meaning that nobody performs without an expectation of receiving some sort of benefit. What are the benefits to the WG and what are the benefits to the rest of the community?
2. Most contracts don't require the dissolution of a party should it default. Rather there are remedies, often times monetary. Sometimes there are bonuses. My point: dissolving a working group because they're late would often be imprudent and short of replacing the chair there are very few other viable remedies.
3. A contract in which one of the parties cannot reasonably be expected to carry out his or her obligations is not a contract at all. Again, if the WG is a party and the community is a party, what is the expectation of the community and is it reasonable? But even with the WG is it reasonable to ever expect innovation as part of the solution under such a circumstance?
4. Contracts generally have limitations when it comes to unforeseen
circumstances, force majeure, etc. One such unforeseen circumstance is where a working group comes up with a solution and the IESG finds sufficient fault with it to require a review. In this case, the terms of the contract need to allow for a resetting of the charter.
As I wrote above, I don't think the contract analogy is perfect. I think we want a cross between a research proposal a'la NSF etc. and a contract, where we allow for changes in direction based on developments within the working group. I'm not saying we should ignore non-performing or under-performing groups, but we should certainly allow some flexibility.
Eliot
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf