Re: Technically-astute non-ADs

John C Klensin wrote:
> 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.
One point is that it is very hard to convey the reality of what it
means to be an AD except by giving somebody the job. Like any other
job, the description doesn't convey the reality. Even having sat on
IESG calls for some years while I was IAB Chair, the reality of
actually being an AD (even for a tiny little area like the General
Area) was a surprise. Even for those who were ADs a few years ago,
I'm sure the current reality would carry a few surprises.

But the ADs are all human and all had to learn to be an AD. I think there
are a lot more people in the IETF who would be *capable* of doing the
job than the NomCom hears about. Please don't be modest, when the call
for nominations comes around again.

> (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.
We also have (when I last checked) *more* I-Ds pouring in than ever before.
So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have people entering this
community who are smart and motivated and should be considered for
WG responsibilities. And I find it hard to believe that among our ~200
WG chairs we don't have people who should be considered for IESG
responsibilities. In other words, I think we all have a duty to ensure
that NomCom hears about the talent that we do have available.

   Brian

>     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

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