--On Friday, October 18, 2013 07:35 +1300 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 10/18/2013 3:54 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
I believe the "intense service" you mention is a significant
deterrent for many.
I'm sure it's been suggested before, but is there mileage in
rethinking the AD roles,
It has been suggested many times. The suggestion has been
ignored.
We have been having some very serious recruitment problems for
a number of years now. This year's crisis was entirely
predictable.
The only way the situation will change meaningfully is to make
the job less onerous, and especially make it possible for the
AD to continue doing real work for their company.
ADs are senior folk. That makes them a strategic resource for
their company. Or, at least, they'd better be. Only very
large companies can afford to lose a strategic resource for
years.
Looking for alternative funding does not make the job less
onerous and does not permit the AD to continue doing real work
for their company.
Re-define the bloody job. At a minimum, make the workload
realistically no more than 50%, but I actually suggest trying
for 25%, given that reality will increase the actual amount
above that.
This means taking the current list of AD tasks and deciding on
the ones that absolutely cannot be done by others, and
specifying other ways to do the remainder.
Agree completely (our notes crossed in the mail).
But, again, the Nomcom can't fix this, at least for this year's
selections. And one thing that has prevented the job from
being trimmed back is resistance from sitting ADs (sometimes
public and vigorous and sometimes passive refusal to consider
procedural changes or discuss them with the community, but
nonetheless blocking resistance). I would support advising the
Nomcom that no one should be placed on, or returned to, the IESG
unless the Nomcom members were convinced that the candidates
considered reducing the size of the role both appropriate and a
high priority.
I don't believe there has ever been sufficient community
consensus for that. I'd be delighted to be wrong.
john