Hi, AB
We don't have enough world-class experts on [insert subject here] that we can
delegate some of them to "administer but don't participate" roles, and some
others to "review but don't participate" roles. The same goes for WG chairs -
if the WG is facing a contentious issue, it doesn't make sense to require the
chair to shut up about it just to make the process more neutral. I'm afraid
we'll have to live with the with-hat/without-hat thing regardless of any
changes to the process of the job description.
The ADs have multiple functions:
- managing the working groups, scheduling
- reviewing all documents
- incubating new work - BoFs.
- representing the IETF, "steering", community stuff.
These functions could be separated, but only at a cost of more people. And
nobody would take any of those jobs if it means they can't speak at technical
meetings.
Yoav
On Oct 20, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Refering to the Change the Job subject of AD roles:
IMHO, the weakest point in the IETF process is having ADs in the IESG,
we need different expert directors roles in there. The AD can abuse
the system in his benefits because he can do ALL types of
participations at input and output, which I never seen that in any
organisation. Some one on the IETF list suggested two paralell IESG
which is nice to separate the area-output from IESG, but I think it is
better Separate ADs from IESG to have: 1) body of ADs and 2) the body
named IESG without current ADs (it may have past ADs experts of each
area). Similar
idea of having two groups of leading but different roles.
Also I always don't like when the IESG is discussing and I see that
the AD responsible for the I-D already made his decision, I prefer
that AD should wait until all put in their decision/discussions, and
then he may say what he thinks.
The ADs SHOULD have important-things in IETF that they are not allowed
to do. I don't like this off-hat and on-hat activities, or two/three
role-images per person in one volunteer organisation.
Best Regards
AB
On 10/17/13, 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.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net