At 07:54 17-10-2013, Tim Chown wrote:
I believe the "intense service" you mention is a significant
deterrent for many.
Yes.
I'm sure it's been suggested before, but is there mileage in rethinking the
AD roles, and either the number of ADs per area, or whether introducing
Assistant ADs or similar might allow people who can contribute less time to
do so, while easing the burden on the main ADs?
My guess is that it is possible to reduce the time requirement to 20
hours per week. It is not possible to get there within a short
timespan. There is a chance that the person attempting that might be
recalled before being able to do anything substantive.
Introducing Assistant ADS might alleviate the problem instead of
being a long-term solution. Please note that I am taking into
consideration the 11-year IETF cycle.
At 08:51 17-10-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
time. I've given the opinion to a number of Nomcoms that the
problem will just get worse unless they select people who see
that expansion of the role as a problem and have plans for how
to fix it (or at least a good-faith intent to support such
plans). My impression is that it hasn't ranked high in Nomcom
Yes.
At the same time, it is hard to blame the IESG for a lot of the
problem. The community has not been supportive of efforts to
push back on formation of WGs nor of shutting down ones that are
unproductive or that cannot reach reasonable levels of consensus
about their work. The "chief representative of the IETF
Yes.
In other words, while I mostly agree with you, it is too late
for most of the issues and remedies by the time the Nomcom
issues a call for Nominations.
Yes.
Adding to the above, the next year, there will be a new NomCom which
has to face the same issues and cannot do much about it as it is too late.
At 10:23 17-10-2013, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The notion that a nearly full-time position with lots of travel can
be a "volunteer" is clearly make-believe. There are three possibilities:
(1) Only people employed by large corporations can realistically be
candidates. The same "access" issues you mention apply, presumably.
Yes.
(3) The workload of the IESG members is reduced and distributed to
return it to a volunteer position (i.e., probably no more than ten
hours a week).
The IESG would have to review less documents. There would have to be
less working groups under the responsibility of the Area Director. A
controversial working group can easily take around ten hours of work
a week. The amount of time can be cut down by sharing the
workload. There would have to be some training if one believes that
it would be inconsiderate to ask a person to volunteer and let the
person hang himself/herself.
At 11:35 17-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
We have been having some very serious recruitment problems for a
number of years now. This year's crisis was entirely predictable.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy