On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com <mailto:moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>> 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