Subject: New discussion of WG documents in the Tao

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:56:05 -0700

Greetings again. I have revved the Tao of the IETF; see <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-08.txt>. This version contains more description of WG documents, particularly in section 5.3, based on what I have seen in various WGs. It would be good to hear comments from WG chairs on this section.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:26:55 -0400

There is one aspect that seems common, but has not been captured in this 
text.

In many working groups, new ideas can be presented even if they are not 
adopted.  Sometimes constrained by the charter, sometimes not (depending 
upon workload usually.)
However, after that, discussion of non-WG items is usually restricted to 
what is need for the WG to decide whether to adopt the document or not. 
  If the WG says no, then the document does not generally get discussed 
further on the WG email list.  Folks who insist on their document being 
discussed anyway are likely to incur ill-will.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:22:46 -0600

Paul, 

Nice stuff but I think it is slightly off from my understanding of the process. My understanding of how a document gets adopted as a WG document is 

1) There needs to be a milestone before it can be adopted. If the milestone needs to be added to the charter, the chair requests this and some AD approves. 

2) The chair(s) need to determine there is WG Consensus to adopt a given individual draft as a WG draft. Often they take a hum to do this and they often end up taking a hum before requesting a milestone. This is fine way to do things but the WG still needs to a milestone and consensus before the chairs approve the submission of the WG draft into the drafts directory. 

Your description of who selects people listed on front page of a WG draft seems right in the first paragraph of 5.3 but are this seems to be a bit contradicting in the last paragraph - for example, saying the document editor can invite the participant to become a co-author or co-editor. I think the chairs need to do that along with most the rest of the paragraph. 

It might be worth discussing that for the most part WG drafts are named draft-ietf-wgname but mention sometimes things named this way are not WG documents due to various hiccups along the way. 

Cullen

> Greetings again. I have revved the Tao of the IETF; see <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-08.txt>. This version contains more description of WG documents, particularly i…

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:53:47 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: New discussion of WG documents in the Tao
...
> 1) There needs to be a milestone before it can be adopted.

My experience/interpretation (admittedly a bit dated now) has been somewhat different.

The work does need to be within the scope spelled out by the current charter,
but does not (in my experience) need to have been assigned specific milestones
before it can be taken up.  Milestones are added / updated as the group comes
to a better understanding of the amount of time required to complete the work,
or as the ADs exert pressure to wrap things up.

If the work is not within the the WG's current scope, then a charter update
(with or without milestones) is needed.

Randy

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:00:46 -0500

This has been the typical pattern for TCPM documents.  If the WG demonstrates consensus to take on a document we add a milestone and the draft becomes a working group document sort of all at once.  For a "maintenance" style of working group this might be more typical than for other types of working group.

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: New discussion of WG documents in the Tao

Hi -

...

Randy

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 00:07:49 -0400

Hi,

Maybe it's like the blind men and the elephant...

> 1) There needs to be a milestone before it can be adopted. If the milestone needs to be added to the charter, the chair requests this and some AD approves.

Nope. the document should be reasonably related to the charter but,
just to make it a working group document, there certainly doesn't need
to be any specific milestone for the document.

While it isn't a good practice or anything, there are IETF working
groups that completed all their milestones long ago and continue to
not just adopt WG draft but continue to produce good RFCs within the
general scope of their charter, year after year.

> 2) The chair(s) need to determine there is WG Consensus to adopt a given individual draft as a WG draft. Often they take a hum to do this and they often end up taking a hum before requesting a mile…

I would have said that the working group decides on its policy for
when a draft is made a working group draft. As is commonly the case
when the "working group" decides something, the chair can decide it
unless it is specially set in their charter or a WG consensus
determination has to be made because their is controversy on the
question or the like.

In at least one working group I am familiar with, a fixed number of
participants indicating they would like a document considered and are
willing to review it is enough to get it made a working group draft
(with no guarantee it will ever be approved by WG consensus or sent up
to their AD for publication) unless the chairs determine it is out of
scope or their are even more participants who don't want it
considered.

If a working group wants, there is no reason not to have a number of
competing working group drafts with the idea that one will be selected
or a few merged...

> Your description of who selects people listed on front page of a WG draft seems right in the first paragraph of 5.3 but are this seems to be a bit contradicting in the last paragraph - for example,…

While technically correct, I thought that saying the WG chair(s) "get
to make decisions" about who the editors/authors of a draft are is
misleading and it sounds like this is usually done in an arbitrary
fashion. In my experience, if the author(s) of a personal draft that
become a WG draft want to continue and will follow the WG decisions in
making changes and can write well enough, they are almost always the
WG draft authors/editors. And if there are mild problems, it would be
more common for the WG chair(s) to supplement them rather than replace
them. Of course, cases do occur where document editors have to be
replaced or the WG chair(s) have to recruit and appoint someone to
write a draft.

In all these things, the more intense the controversy in a WG and the
larger the number of active participants, the more formal procedures
generally have to be.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:37:00 -0400

I have to disagree with Donald on one important point.

...
> replaced or the WG chair(s) have to recruit and appoint someone to

While the default assumption is that a document proposer gets to 
continue editing the document they bring forward, it is, in my opinion, 
very important that it be clear to new participants that this is not 
necessary nor universal.
The Chair can appoint a different editor at any point in the process, 
either when the WG takes on the document or later on.  There are many 
reasons why a chair may need to do that.
In a working group that is functioning well, with non-contentious 
content, this should not be necessary.  But it is a very useful tool in 
the chair's repertoire for keeping the group in order.  If this document 
makes that sort of change look too extra-ordinary, then it will be 
harder for the chair to use that tool.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:33:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> 2) The chair(s) need to determine there is WG Consensus to adopt a given individual draft as a WG draft. Often they take a hum to do this and they often end up taking a hum before requesting a mile…

My own personal experience has been that wg do not insist that there needs 
to be a milestone for each draft in the working group.

But I do agree that the process I've seen involves a specific call to the 
working group to agree to adoption of the draft as a working group 
document.

This new TAO doesn't say that explicitly.  Section 7.3 says:

    An Internet-Draft can be either a Working Group draft or an
    individual submission.  Working Group drafts are usually reviewed by
    the Working Group before being accepted as a WG item, although the
    chairs have the final say.

and section 5.3 says

    The WG
    chairs get to make the decisions about which drafts will become WG
    drafts

which gives the impression that the chair can decide to adopt 
unilaterally.

Of course, if drafts must be milestones, getting working group consensus 
on the adoption of the draft is moot, since there should have been 
consensus on the milestone.

I checked rfc2418 and could find no discussion of the process of making a 
draft a wg document.  Is there some other place to check?  Or is there no 
real requirement for that process?  (woo-hoo! :-) )

My wg protested when a portion of a draft pulled out to become a new draft 
was submitted as a wg document without wg approval, so I know that there 
are some who believe the approval is not only required but not transitive.

There's also no discussion of wg documents that are abandoned, i.e., the 
wg decides not to pursue that thought.  Of course, if drafts=milestones, 
this would require a charter modification, which is covered.

--Sandy

P.S.  I'm presently mulling over the proper process for a new draft that 
was specifically "requested" by an AD and for which volunteers have 
stepped forward. My present idea is to request wg adoption of the work 
item before the draft is available and then submit as a wg draft. 
Comments welcome.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:36:49 -0400

> I have to disagree with Donald on one important point.

Joel,

I don't see that we disagree. Maybe the important point is that the
Tao should say that exactly how things work in practice in an IETF WG,
as in any organization composed of human being, depends on the
circumstances and the people involved. Even as regards the supposed
"authority" of the WG Chair to appoint document editors, I wonder if
you can cite an RFC reference for that? The relevant paragraph from
RFC 2418 is as follows. Note the middle sentence:

   Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of
   documents, that capture the results of the group's work.  A working
   group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor
   for a particular document.  The Document Editor is responsible for
   ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the
   decisions that have been made by the working group.

So I think this WG Chair "authority" really just comes from the WG
Chair power to judge consensus and to speak for the WG when there is a
rough consensus or in the default when no one objects.

Thanks,
Donald

>>> Your description of who selects people listed on front page of a WG draft
>>> seems right in the first paragraph of 5.3 but are this seems to be a bit
>>> contradicting in the last paragraph - for example, saying the document
>>> editor can invite the participant to become a co-author or co-editor. I
>>> think the chairs need to do that along with most the rest of the paragraph.
>>
> While the default assumption is that a document proposer gets to continue
> editing the document they bring forward, it is, in my opinion, very
> important that it be clear to new participants that this is not necessary
> nor universal.
> The Chair can appoint a different editor at any point in the process, either
> when the WG takes on the document or later on.  There are many reasons why a
> chair may need to do that.
> In a working group that is functioning well, with non-contentious content,
> this should not be necessary.  But it is a very useful tool in the chair's
> repertoire for keeping the group in order.  If this document makes that sort
> of change look too extra-ordinary, then it will be harder for the chair to
> use that tool.
>
> Yours,
> Joel

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:36:49 -0400

On May 26, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

>> Nice stuff but I think it is slightly off from my understanding of  
>> the process. My understanding of how a document gets adopted as a  
>> WG document is
>>
>> 1) There needs to be a milestone before it can be adopted. If the  
>> milestone needs to be added to the charter, the chair requests this  
>> and some AD approves.
>>
>> 2) The chair(s) need to determine there is WG Consensus to adopt a  
>> given individual draft as a WG draft. Often they take a hum to do  
>> this and they often end up taking a hum before requesting a  
>> milestone. This is fine way to do things but the WG still needs to  
>> a milestone and consensus before the chairs approve the submission  
>> of the WG draft into the drafts directory.
>>
>
> My own personal experience has been that wg do not insist that there  
> needs to be a milestone for each draft in the working group.
>

I have been in WG where this is insisted on. I think that this tends  
to be done more in the more fractious ones.

Regards
Marshall

> But I do agree that the process I've seen involves a specific call  
> to the working group to agree to adoption of the draft as a working  
> group document.
>
> Of course, if drafts must be milestones, getting working group  
> consensus on the adoption of the draft is moot, since there should  
> have been consensus on the milestone.
>
> I checked rfc2418 and could find no discussion of the process of  
> making a draft a wg document.  Is there some other place to check?   
> Or is there no real requirement for that process?  (woo-hoo! :-) )
>
> My wg protested when a portion of a draft pulled out to become a new  
> draft was submitted as a wg document without wg approval, so I know  
> that there are some who believe the approval is not only required  
> but not transitive.
>
> There's also no discussion of wg documents that are abandoned, i.e.,  
> the wg decides not to pursue that thought.  Of course, if  
> drafts=milestones, this would require a charter modification, which  
> is covered.
>
> --Sandy
>
> P.S.  I'm presently mulling over the proper process for a new draft  
> that was specifically "requested" by an AD and for which volunteers  
> have stepped forward. My present idea is to request wg adoption of  
> the work item before the draft is available and then submit as a wg  
> draft. Comments welcome.
>
>
>> Your description of who selects people listed on front page of a WG  
>> draft seems right in the first paragraph of 5.3 but are this seems  
>> to be a bit contradicting in the last paragraph - for example,  
>> saying the document editor can invite the participant to become a  
>> co-author or co-editor. I think the chairs need to do that along  
>> with most the rest of the paragraph.
>>
>> It might be worth discussing that for the most part WG drafts are  
>> named draft-ietf-wgname but mention sometimes things named this way  
>> are not WG documents due to various hiccups along the way.
>>
>> Cullen
>>
>>
>>> Greetings again. I have revved the Tao of the IETF; see <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-08.txt 
>>> >. This version contains more description of WG documents,  
>>> particularly in section 5.3, based on what I have seen in various  
>>> WGs. It would be good to hear comments from WG chairs on this  
>>> section.
>>>
>>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>>> --VPN Consortium
>>
>>
>> Cullen Jennings

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:47:05 -0400

Well, practice going back at least to 1994 has given the chair (and 
through the chair the ADs) the power to fire a document editor.  This is 
important because getting into a debate with the WG about whether an 
editor is exceeding his remit is going to be difficult and complicated.
I have seen this done multiple times, in several different working groups.

As I understand it, the point of the Tao is to document what happens.

Yes, I can stretch the text from 2418 to support this.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:27:28 -0400

> through the chair the ADs) the power to fire a document editor.  This is  

But I guess as Donald points out, the actual RFC doesn't say that
editors serve at the pleasure of the chair.  The RFC says that the WG
appoints the editor.  (This is not in agreement with para 3, §5.3 of
the draft.  BTW, there's a missing period in that paragraph too.)

Since the chair is sort of the administrative arm of the WG, I take
this to mean that the chair can replace, add, or remove an editor so
long as the WG doesn't object.  Ultimately, though, since it's the
chair's responsibility to rule on the rough consensus of the WG, it's
pretty obvious that a chair is going to be able to pick the consensus
that suits.  I suspect that abuse of this by a chair would raise
eyebrows, which is why it doesn't happen so often.

All that said, I think it is important that readers of the Tao get the
message that there is no promise that an individual submission author
will end up as editor of the document if it is adopted.  I can think
of one WG in particular where a lot of ill will has been generated
because some participants did not understand this point.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:30:55 -0400

> because some participants did not understand this point.

I certainly agree with that.

Donald

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:31:51 -0400

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make.
Thanks,
Joel

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:49:17 -0400

On May 26, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> long as the WG doesn't object.

Here is a recent example - LISP. At the end of the first session in  
Hiroshima, the AD fired the WG Chairs and document editor.
That same day (2009-11-09) the AD sent an email announcing :

"After Hiroshima, I will assign new chairs and find a new editor for  
the base specification."

I was there; he did ask the WG for feedback, but this was presented to  
the WG (and the 3 individuals involved)
as a fait accompli, as indeed it was.

Regards
Marshall

> Ultimately, though, since it's the

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:58:20 -0400

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "After Hiroshima, I will assign new chairs and find a new editor for the
> base specification."

Are you saying that the AD nuked the WG officers?

> I was there; he did ask the WG for feedback, but this was presented to the
> WG (and the 3 individuals involved)

I agree that the AD has such authority but we were talking about the
WG chair. So, to the extent that there are any doubts about the WG
chair authority, or the WG chair is uncertain what to do, or the WG
chair is looking for cover for what they want to do, consulting with
the AD and having it be an AD action or joint WG-chair/AD action can
be a very good idea.

Donald

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:02:01 -0400

> Hiroshima, the AD fired the WG Chairs and document editor.

Well, this is a little different.  I'm not actually sure the AD is
allowed under the rules to decree that he will find a new editor, but
he is clearly allowed to replace the chairs.  See, e.g., RFC 2418 §4.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:02:25 -0400

> Are you saying that the AD nuked the WG officers?

That is a quote of his words in his email. He said something very  
similar in person; note that this was during the IETF
week, so "After Hiroshima" effectively meant "Friday".

> the AD and having it be an AD action or joint WG-chair/AD action can

I know that the editor involved did not know of this in advance, and I  
do not believe that the
chairs did either.

Marshall

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:05:57 -0600

Let's consider the following case .... 

The WG has a milestone for the "client to tell the web server that the client is evil" and everyone has consensus this is a fine milestone for the Evil WG. We get two proposal on how to do this call them A and B. A reuses the evil bit at the IP layer and B creates a new HTTP header to do it.

A beauty contest style debate ensues and the there is a HUM with reasonable consensus for A. The chair decides to adopt B as the WG item. This seems to be in the "not OK" category to me. If we all agree this does not sound OK, I think it makes the rest of the discussion easier. 

Cullen Jennings

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:09:05 -0600

> to be done more in the more fractious ones.

There has certainly been many cases of WG named documents that did not have a milestones. Some of these are just admin-a-trivia mistakes. I've seen ones where the AD approved the milestone in the meeting but afterwords no one remembered to update the web pages with the milestones. These are not a really big deal. 

I've also seen ones where the WG send a draft to the IESG, the IESG said you don't have a milestone for this and it is outside the scope of your charter. That is a real big deal, particularly if the WG had consensus on the document but does not have consensus to re-charter. That is the worst type of "late surprises" that we should be doing everything possible to avoid. It probably means an instance year or two delay for the work. 

If the AD is unwilling to add a milestone for a given topic, that is conversation the WG/Chairs/AD should be having *before* there is a WG document because it means there is some real issue. The case where the AD is just wrong as one of types of real issues but it's better to deal with that early not late. 

The whole point of the milestones is to have something jointly set by the AD and Chairs (not just the ADs) that is the tool to mange what the WG is currently working on to meet their charter. If there is no relation between milestones and what work and go into working group documents, I have no idea what the purpose of the milestones is and the chairs loose an important management tool. 

The dates for the milestones are sort of separate the milestones and as far as I can tell are set by the chairs though no one knows what they mean. <rant> Are they a really optimistic target we are trying to use to drive authors? Are they a date after which chair can torment authors? Are the our best estimate of when the take will be done? Are they an outside deadline by which the task is highly likely to be complete? Are they when the WG thinks the work needs to be done regardless of how long it will take? Are the a meaningless date, often in the past, put on a web page to confuse unsuspecting people not familiar with the IETF. </rant> Luckily I does not seem to matter much one way or the other.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:11:32 -0400

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:05:57AM -0600, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> A beauty contest style debate ensues and the there is a HUM with
> reasonable consensus for A. The chair decides to adopt B as the WG
> item. This seems to be in the "not OK" category to me. If we all
> agree this does not sound OK, I think it makes the rest of the
> discussion easier.

Well, I don't think it's OK, but apart from appeal I fail completely
to see what anyone could do about it.  The chair is supposed to rule
on rough consensus.  Of course someone can pick the wrong answer
(either on purpose or by mistake).

A 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:21:40 -0400

Assuming that the list agreed with the room, then no, the chair does not 
have that right.
If he goes that way, I would expect some WG members to talk to him (if 
the AD doesn't get to him first.)
Assuming for the moment that the AD does not realize what is happening,
and assuming that the chair is not responsive when WG members point out 
that the WG agreement was different, then folks go talk to the AD.
Long before it reaches a formal appeal the AD and the chair should have 
sat down and fixed the problem.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:37:37 -0700

> Assuming that the list agreed with the room, then no, the chair does not

Agree in general, but there have to be some bounds.  If the WG has agreed on
something that clearly violates process, law, or morality, then the chair
should step in.

Chairs also have a responsibility to ensure that the WG is operating within
its boundaries.  When that conflicts with the will of the WG, the WG might
be in the wrong.

> sat down and fixed the problem.

Amen.

Tony

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:43:18 -0700

I will summarize some of the relevant proposed changes later after there is more discussion, but could I request that this thread focus on the "it the Tao" part of the subject? I do not think that the Tao is the right place to be including text on noxious corner cases.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:59:19 -0600

I meant the example to be one where the consensus was clear and the chair would call the consensus as A. Obviously consensus calls can be hard and wrong ones get made but we know how to deal with that. 

I'm poking at the who's decision is it? I don't think it's a place where the chair can unilaterally overrule the WG on adopting it. I'm OK with the chair saying this volts principle X or is not in charter or whatever and not adopting it but it seem wrong to me for the chair to adopt the a document the WG does not have consensus to adopt. 

Cullen Jennings

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:51:51 -0400

> long as the WG doesn't object.

RFC2418 has the following to say on the subject (in section 6.1).

   The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF.  The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in
   making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when
   circumstances warrant such an intervention.

So, anywhere the process says "the working group" does something related to 
process or staffing, like adopting a document or selecting an editor, the 
WG chair is empowered to make such decisions, more or less unilaterally. 
Of course, there are checks on this, such as the appeals process and the 
AD's power to remove the chair, and an effective chair is rarely going to 
make a decision that the WG is unwilling to accept.

IMHO, the Tao should reflect that there are differences in how WG's work in 
regard to adopting documents.  In some cases, chairs unilaterally adopt 
documents; in others, there is a consensus call.  It should also reflect 
that there are significant differences in _when_ documents are adopted -- 
in some WG's, documents spend nearly their entire life as WG documents, 
while in others, they are not adopted until they are nearly complete.

With regard to staffing, the Tao should reflect that in practice, the 
author(s) of an individual document adopted by a WG often become the 
authors/editors of the WG documents, but that this is not guaranteed and 
the decision is up to the chair.  IMHO it is very important that potential 
document authors understand this up front.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:51:51 -0400

--On Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:09:05 AM -0600 Cullen Jennings 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The dates for the milestones are sort of separate the milestones and as
> far as I can tell are set by the chairs though no one knows what they
> mean. <rant> Are they a really optimistic target we are trying to use to
> drive authors? Are they a date after which chair can torment authors? Are
> the our best estimate of when the take will be done? Are they an outside
> deadline by which the task is highly likely to be complete? Are they when
> the WG thinks the work needs to be done regardless of how long it will
> take? Are the a meaningless date, often in the past, put on a web page to
> confuse unsuspecting people not familiar with the IETF. </rant> Luckily I
> does not seem to matter much one way or the other.

This is kind of important.  I see milestones as way of setting expectations 
about the progress of specific work items, but not as a tool for limiting 
what a WG is working on at any given moment.  If a WG does not yet know (or 
believe it knows) how long a particular work item will take, it should not 
have a milestone.  But that doesn't mean the WG shouldn't be able to work 
on it, or even finish it.  It certainly should not mean that when such a 
work item quickly converges and enters WGLC, the chair should hurry up and 
establish a milestone of "Send to IESG now" because the IESG will reject 
the document without one.

In WG's I have worked on, milestones have been set by the chair in 
consultation with the authors and other contributors and with the approval 
of the AD.  For a while I had an "update milestones" item near the end of 
the agenda for each WG meeting, but I finally came to the conclusion that 
this was a poor use of WG meeting time for something which usually involved 
only a few people.

I agree that some consistency in the meaning of milestone dates would be 
nice.

-- Jeff