I suggest not to change AD tasks, efforts, and responsibilities but to add
a new position for each area as assistant AD position that has less
qualification and attendance (can be done by remote participants). I think
the ignorance is on remote participants not on reducing responsibilities.
IMHO, If we reduce job output of AD and responsibilities we will get low
quality Processes. By having assistant ADs we reduce only ADs input hours
in IETF.
AB
On Thursday, October 17, 2013, Dave Crocker 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.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net