|
On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman
wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith
Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I don't think milestones will be useful unless and until:
(a) they're defined in terms of not only concrete but also
meaningful goals (e.g. "complete problem definition",
"identify affected parties and groups representing their
interests", "complete outline of initial design", but NOT
"revise document X");
(b) we start automatically suspending the activities of groups
that fail to meet them (no meetings, no new I-Ds accepted,
mailing list traffic blocked), until such groups are formally
rechartered; and
(c) IESG is reluctant to recharter groups that have repeatedly
failed to meet milestones, especially if those groups haven't
produced evidence of significant progress.
I think we can find some middle ground between "ignore
charter milestones completely"
and "autobot to terminate WGs behind schedule". :-)
Actually I think it might require an autobot. Because someone
(probably the responsible AD) has to evaluate a WG's progress, and
ADs don't want to take the heat for shutting WGs down. Better to
put the responsibility on the chairs for completing the milestones
and reporting to the AD before the shutdown deadline.
(of course, there could be a generous grace period between the
milestone deadline and the actual shutdown, with warning messages
sent to the WG chairs and ADs, etc.)
Keith
|