One possible tool to consider is a "slip chart" which plots the
estimated date of delivery against the date the estimate is made. If
successive estimates of when a milestone is going to be reached are
all the same, then the project is on track. If successive estimates
keep sliding into the future, this shows up vividly.
I have to admit that whenever I've tried to impose this discipline on
groups I've managed, what happens in practice is the people being
measured try to change the game and argue the new estimates apply to
completely different milestones than the original ones...
On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(1) It is hard to "fire" WG chairs - they are often friends and
colleagues. Unfortunately, many stay on when their job
responsibilities have changed and they can no longer dedicate
the necessary time.
Solution: Institute WG chair term limits of (say) one or two
years. That way, there is an expectation of change and the
possibility for more people to prove themselves. With two
chairs, staggering terms ensures continuity.
I hope you don't mean a term limit. Making chair appointments
renewable might work - but limiting the pool of talent by imposing
term limits would be self-inflicted damage, IMHO.
How about limiting the term of working groups, instead? If a working
group stretches beyond about 2 years, there is a lot of value in
limiting its scope, shunting new work/extensions into a new working
group or groups, and trying to shut it down in the next 12-18 months.
Very much a case of YMMV, I think. But if a WG's milestones have to
being extended for no good reason, that should be a red flag.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list