Hi,
I don't think the Assistant AD job would be easy to define
or even the right approach. IMO doubling the number of ADs
would probably work better, although at an increased cost
wrt/ managing the review process. I do not agree that
every AD needs to review every draft. The review
and WG management tasks should be shared by 4 people
instead of 2 people.
The problem I see is that few people are both qualified
and able to do full-time volunteer work for the IESG.
There is a disconnect between the official job requirements
and the real job requirements that is being ignored here.
Perhaps if the AD job really was only 20 hours a week
there would be a lot more people willing and able to
accept a nomination.
Andy
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
I have asked you and other ADs several times if Assistant ADs would help.
The answer I got was "not really, but a well run directorate really
helps.".
OK. Doesn't sound like refusing to consider. Sounds like answering your
question.
So let's take it to the next step because it may be that the current IESG
cannot
conceive of how an assistant AD would work.
Can you put up a strawman of the job tasks of an assistant AD that we can
work
with to discuss whether this has legs?
Would assistant ADs be appointed and work for sitting ADs, or would they be
NomCom appointments?
Can't an AD already delegate anything they want (except the
responsibility)?
Why not double the number of ADs in each area and instead of
every AD reviewing every draft, have 2 ADs from each area
review each draft? (Cut the AD hours in half somehow)
There is mileage in that. I don't think every AD reviews every document.
Some
pairs of ADs consciously split the load. Some ADs don't do detailed
reviews of
documents in other areas or just focus on specific topics.
But we must get off the idea that document review is the whole of the AD
load. I
think it is only around 15-20%. Maybe that rises with pursuit of Discusses
(moral: don't raise Discusses). That doesn't mean that other parts of the
load
couldn't be shifted.
Cheers,
Adrian