On 2013-10-21, at 10:28, Allison Mankin
<allison(_dot_)mankin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
We've been told a reason for decline about 10 times so far. Half of those
cited the time commitment and uncertainty of support by their employer, the
other half cited only their support for the incumbent. Sometimes people say
that they won't try to get the support by their employer because they support
the incumbent so they think their own candidacy isn't needed.
My sense of the feedback I have seen so far (and it's certainly true for me) is
quite simple:
- the perception is that doing a good job on the IESG is pretty much a
full-time commitment
- I don't have enough free time to do that outside my day job. I have
children, and the transhumanists have not produced an effective way to live
without sleep yet.
- My employer, although demonstrably willing and able to dedicate resources to
the IETF for the good of the Internet, wants me working on other things than
just "IESG" during work hours
- I didn't volunteer
I'm not suggesting that I'd be of any use on the IESG anyway, but the current
conversation seems to be more about the number of volunteers than the quality
of the volunteers.
If the perception in the first ASCIIbullet above is inaccurate, then it makes
sense to correct it. Joel's estimate of how much the Ops Area AD role consumes
for him was different, for example.
I think the concern that the number of people available within the constraints
above to dedicate time to the IESG is low and represents an institutional bias
is reasonable. There's no way that a resource-stretched, panic-mode, regional
ISP is going to be able to pull their top talent away from the burning routers
and send them full-time to review drafts and push paper for the IETF, for
example. This is not going to make the oft-cited concern about operator
involvement in the IETF any better.
Joe