John,
That is important
input, but I question whether it should be controlling for
either applicants or Nomcom decisions. In particular, while,
e.g., the introduction to the "IESG Requirements" document
seems to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the
role requires "between 25 and 40 hours per week" and the IETF
Chair one indicates that the job is full-time. I don't know
whether there is community consensus for this view,
It isn't a view. It's a statement of fact.
I realised I had missed off a clause.
It's a statement of fact about what the current (and recent ex)
ADs have found necessary.
...
Suppose potential candidates exist in the community who believe
that they have ideas that would significantly rearrange the
workload --within the bounds established by existing,
documented, procedures-- so as to make the community less
dependent on two-year commitments of huge blocks of time from a
small number of individuals and, consequently, see the time
commitment required by the job differently. I am expressing the
hope that such people would apply for the positions, and
initiate a dialogue with the Nomcom about them, without being
unreasonably deterred by incumbent job descriptions and time
estimates.
I have no problem with that at all.
I also hope that the Nomcom would take such
candidacies seriously and would evaluate the hypotheses about
different ways to structure the roles (again, within the bounds
identified in consensus documents) in a careful and serious way,
rather than checking off "not willing to commit as much time as
the descriptions claim is necessary".
That would be perfectly appropriate. (I'm not expressing an opinion
about the outcome of such an evaluation.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf