I recommend that IESG consider discussing this problem more deeper for
future disasters and know why we have this problem today (maybe because of
our IETF managments in the past did not think of this problem that it might
come real) of short ADs or very low interest in taking such
responsibilities. In my opinion there is something wrong with the IESG or
NOMCOM, their system maybe old and needs to encourage
participants/new-comers in these positions, and make awareness.
The solution is always encouraging diversity of participants into thoes
positions, why does not IESG and NOMCOM find new ways to market IETF-Jobs.
If we are doing more than 2 meetings every year in one region of majority
participants, it is strange that we cannot get an AD ready to do the full
job for even one year. This problem can be blamed easily on IESG or/and
NOMCOM but not the community that follows its few leaders, but if we have
more diversified community we may blame the community of such problem.
AB
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
I have some opinions about this, not to the mistaken for the IESG's or
IETF's official opinions.
First off, I think we should be very careful when thinking about funding
models. I like an IETF where people come to do stuff (write docs for
themselves and others, chair WGs, work as ADs, …) because it is useful for
themselves and their employers - directly or indirectly, short term or long
term, but there needs to be a reason we all are here. A desirable feature
of a funding model is to help direct efforts to directions that are
actually useful for the world. This is not to say that it would be the only
desirable feature of a funding model, we have serious problems with
academic participation, for instance. And we have too many situations where
we only have large companies involved. But I could also imagine funding
models that would support ADs but would move IETF towards doing things that
are not tied to real world and real Internet problems. But it is possible
there is a useful middle ground.
Secondly, we've talked about this in the IESG and the community last
spring when we had only one TSV AD for a while. My read of the situation is
that reducing the task to a better manageable one is the most reasonable
course of action. It would also solve many of the undesirable aspects of
the funding model. I can only agree with Adrian who said:
Please don't assume we ADs want this to be full time work.
Thirdly, if you are considering volunteering for an AD task, please do not
feel that you need to be limited by current operating models. The AD is a
management position, and we expect managers to have an idea how to run
things, often better than what has been done previously. For instance,
several ADs make extensive use of directorates in their review tasks, for
instance several Gen ADs have traditionally relied almost entirely on
directorate help (at least unless problems show up in review of a
document). Other ADs do this too, though to a lesser extent due to a
different type of their task. But for all of these positions, if you have
an idea how to run it best - please volunteer and expect to get a lot of
latitude to run your area how you see best!
Fourth, the IESG's desirable qualifications are just our opinions, and the
nomcom needs to decide what type of people the IETF really needs. Hopefully
that is the kind of people that I referred to above that know how to
organise their and others work in an efficient manner! And the areas are
largely run by the ADs very independently. The IESG does control things
like how we run the common things, the tele chats, and we do control how
many areas there are. If it helped to increase or reduce the number of ADs,
we'd do it in a heartbeat. However, the quick solution of getting
additional ADs to share tasks more widely is not necessarily good either,
because the overall team size would grow, with the inter-IESG coordination
becoming harder. I think we are already at a practical limit. Shrinking the
IESG might make us think harder about what tasks really are absolutely
necessary :-)
Finally, I'll agree with Ted:
You forgot "from a magical pool of better qualified WG chairs who have
the time and inclination to take on the work." This is actually very
similar to the AD acquisition problem.
My conclusion is that (a) IETF that does useful things on a timely basis
will naturally attract people to do the work and (b) a big part of the
responsibility is in the IESG's and individual AD's hands - if the manager
doesn't manage his or hers work efficiently, then it is the manager's fault.
As to how to implement (b): I think it is natural that as organisations do
more (and we do quite a bit, and have been for a long time) the management
needs to give up on managing all details, and have to spend more of their
time in finding the good coders than fixing the bugs in the code themselves
:-) Delegate. Focus on the strategic things. Yeah, maybe easier said than
done.
Jari