On 3/3/2013 4:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the
problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs.
Finding qualified Transport ADs has been a continuing problem for a
number of years. This year's impasse was inevitable. Whatever the
problem, it's deep-seated.[*]
While the problem for Transport is extreme, it's generally difficult to
find a good range of qualified candidates for AD. A major barrier is
the time commitment to the job. And it's not really a 50% slot; the
reality for most ADs seemed to be in the 75-100% range.
This is a massive cost to their employer, both in raw dollars and
opportunity cost -- ADs are typically senior contributors. That means
removing a strategic resource from the company's main activities. To
take a senior contributor away usually requires that the company be very
large and have a very deep bench of talent.
That's an onerous burden, in my view, and significantly reduces the pool
of available candidates.
The IESG needs to decide that the job is a 25% job -- an actual terms --
and then decide what tasks are essential to perform within that amount
of time. This will require a significant change in the way ADs do their
work.
Reducing the real, budgeted time for an ADs job should significantly
increase the pool of available candidates. As a side benefit, it should
also significantly improve the diversity of the pool, along most parameters.
As an obvious example of what to change, it means that ADs need to
change their paradigm for document review.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net