On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:52, Scott Brim <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Adding more certainly doesn't help. Reducing the number could help if we have
a concomitant increase in the usefulness of directorates. But it doesn't
solve the problem. If we learn to adjust to having fewer ADs, and the trend
toward a smaller more homogeneous candidate pool continues, we end up with
just a Chair and maybe 1-2 ADs, plus a lot of (appointed) "assistants". That
could work, but let's decide explicitly if that's the trajectory we want to
be on.
I suspect we may find that more people would be able to find the time and
resource to do AD-like tasks for a handful of hours per week, rather than
having to find support to commit for 40 hours per week. Helping on a
directorate is, for example, not an onerous task, but it (I hope) helps the ADs.
As it stands, WG chairs have the option to appoint a secretary, for some level
of help. The question I asked in the original email was whether ADs should have
the option to appoint one or more assistants to help them. It seems that
there's a lot to be said for such a model. Potential future ADs could
contribute the time they do have, and in doing so get a better feel for what
the full AD role would be like, while the ADs would get some extra
resource/help, which could reduce the amount of time they need to spend, making
the role more attractive/feasible to them.
The question is how we answer Scott's last sentence above. It could be a good
topic to put on the admin plenary agenda in Vancouver.
Tim