Re: Technically-astute non-ADs (was: Re: text suggested by ADs)

Ralph,

An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected 
perspective.  But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I 
think it would be useful to hear from others, especially those 
who have put in a few terms as WG chairs or doc editors, on 
this.   What I've heard, very indirectly, from some nomcoms is 
that they sometimes return incumbents, in spite of seeing a need 
for turnover, because they have had no plausible alternatives. 
To the extent to which that is a real issue, I think it means 
two things to the community:
(i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change 
things around until there are alternatives.  That might involve 
workload/ work description changes, training alternatives and 
more "leadership development", or other factors, but it seems to 
me that the question is becoming critical-path.
(ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne 
questions about areas and IETF capabilities.  In particular, 
suppose we have an area that has so little leadership depth that 
the nomcom does not have reasonable choices of AD candidates. 
Is it time to declare that the IETF lacks the resources to 
pursue the work of that area in an effective way and then shut 
it down?  That is not a propoosal, just a question that, I 
believe, deserves serious thought.
    john


--On Thursday, May 05, 2005 08:48 -0400 Ralph Droms 
<rdroms(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
> John - editing to get directly to your questions:
>
> On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> > (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term
> > or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
> > obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors,
> > owed the community?
> I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't
> chosen to fulfill.  I have seriously considered allowing the
> nomcom to add my name to the list of candidates for AD a
> couple of times (and may have left may name on the list once,
> but I can't recall with certainty), but have always decided
> against it in the end.  I have the delusion that I would be
> able to make a positive contribution.  However, from what I've
> been able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not
> been willing to make the professional and personal tradeoffs
> (even sacrifices) required to fulfill the responsibilities.
>
> And, I already seem to have a life sentence as chair of the
> dhc WG...
>
> > (2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order
> > to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you?   Please
> > don't just answer "lower workload": if that is all or part of
> > the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do
> > with it?
> I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make
> it plausible.  More important would be to find myself in a
> professional and personal situation where I, my family and my
> employer would be willing to commit the necessary time (15-25
> hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel to fulfill the commitments.
>
> - Ralph




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf