The problem is that WG participants SHOULD follow/update their
milestones and take responsibility to progress work to thoes goals
direction. The Chair SHOULD follow the WG requests, or the Chair
SHOULD encourage discussing the milestones. I already requested before
that all WGs SHOULD discuss their milestones and update it in each
meeting or on the list. If no one cares then the result is WG failing
some-goals which no one realise until long, but some people outside
the IETF are watching such performance.
AB
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore network-heretics.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.
>
