On 11/7/2015 5:59 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
The nomcom used to ask the question:
"The AD job is a 50% commitment" (and the joke was: 50% of an 80 hour
week)
...
The nomcom now asks a different question:
"The AD job is supposed to be a 50% commitment, but has grown.
The difference in the approaches is useful and encouraging.
However the problem is in the parenthetical joke, because it isn't
really a joke. We really do tend to think of the AD job that way.
So the only thing that will make the AD job more accessible to staff
from smaller companies is to make it possible for the AD job to take
/substantially/ less time.
Think in terms of 25%, not 50%.
This requires viewing the AD job considerably more modestly than we do
now. Ironically, it will probably make the AD job more useful.
ADs vary wildly in what they choose to do and how they choose to do it.
But too many ADs tend towards viewing their role as one of technical
leadership.[*] That's what they've developed in the day job, and it's
what they are most comfortable doing. The task of an AD is
fundamentally different.
The reality is that IETF work does not succeed or fail because of the
technical input from an AD. Nor does it succeed because of an AD's
"leadership". That an AD occasionally catches some important error in a
draft is a distraction, not a justification. IETF work is subject to
extensive reviews from many sources; the statistical import of
late-stage AD review is in the noise. Again: For all the considerable
amount of time ADs spend on technical and procedural minutia
little-to-no real benefit is produced, other than the consumption of
time and the production of frustration.
The primary effect of much of the exceptional intervention by ADs is to
increase the perception of the IETF as having too many barriers to be
worth the effort.
More broadly, ADs need to stop believing that the fate of the Internet
rests on their shoulders. For that matter, they need to stop believing
that the fate of the IETF rests on their shoulders.
IETF efforts succeed when there is a serious community need, significant
perception of the need by the community that includes a sense of timely
urgency, significant community participation, significant community
agreement on the goals, and a general willingness to compromise towards
the common goals. None of this has anything to do with ADs (or the IAB).
When performed well, the AD job is one of helping to make sure that
community ducks are lined up properly. They facilitate the process of
organizing and operating an effort. They don't "direct" the actual
work. They don't initiate it and they don't manage the internal working
group process nor the technical content that is developed.
Defining the AD job to be fundamentally more modest and fundamentally
one of facilitation will simultaneously make the job accessible to a
much wider range of candidates and make the job more useful to the
community.
d/
[*] The variation in how ADs see the role of "leadership" is also a
problem. Some believe they have to intervene constantly and at low
levels. I've even been told that one AD once asked another what they
should raise as a DISCUSS, apparently on the premise that they felt
obligated to raise some sort of DISCUSS. Such a compulsion is a
corruption of the AD's role. More recently I watched quite a few ADs
press for adding editorial content to a (my) Independent Stream draft
RFC, going far beyond the explicit constraints of the IESG's agreement
with the RFC Editor. Simply paying attention to the rules would
probably eliminate a noticeable amount of AD make-work.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net