Nomcom again, so I'll take the bait.
* On the workload aspects, I for one, as a Nomcom member, am guilty as charged. We get a guidance at the beginning of the process from the IAB and the IESG on what the work entails. If I recall correctly, an AD's job is more or less full-time, whereas an IAB member spends about 20% of time or more (chair and 1 or 2 more people spend, we are told, about 50% or more). The general complain we hear is that the processes are generally slow, so I am inclined to select someone who can put the hours.
I did make a suggestion that for some areas, it might make sense to appoint 3 ADs. That is of course not the Nomcom's decision, and we were told that that idea was considered and rejected since it might result in too much time wasted in coordination between the ADs (makes sense to me, to an extent).
* On term limits, I would use the following rules of thumb (I am *not* saying I or the current or the past Nomcoms used these guidelines, but putting forth ideas for potential consensus):
For the 2nd term, unless there is substantially more negative feedback than positive, reup the AD (we are told it takes about 1 year to learn the ropes so to speak, so it is disruptive to keep replacing people before they learn to do it well).
For the 3rd term, I would place the incumbent at the same level as a new candidate (assuming neutral feedback on the sitting AD, or even if he/she is doing a very good job).
For the 4th term, I would favor new candidates than the incumbent (so unless the sitting AD is excellent and the area absolutely needs him/her, and no one else can do half-the-job etc. :-)).
If there is consensus around something like this, I think future Nomcom members might very well follow the guidelines.
(Disclaimer: Again reasserting that this does not mean that I or others are currently using the above guidelines.)
regards, Lakshminath
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 14:23 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom
("there were no other choices") and suggest that the regular
occurrence of that rationale is sufficient indication of a
deep, serious problem that needs addressing.
This is indeed a problem. The time commitment required for these positions is so large that it is essentially a full-time job. That means the nomcom has to try to find someone who is qualified, is willing to set aside whatever they're working on for 2 years, and has a source of funding for that period of time. Few employers are willing to provide that kind of support, and few individuals (or at least, few individuals qualified to serve in the IETF leadership) can afford to do so on their own.
This is a problem that has been mentioned many times, with
many proposed solutions of varying practicality and
effectiveness. I'm not going to comment here on any of those
proposals, but I do think the problem needs to be addressed.
This is not easy, though, and will require some study and
significant involvement from present and past holders of those
jobs.
Jeff,
There are some ways to fix, or at least improve, parts of this, but there doesn't seem to be any will in the community to do so. I'm not going to say much that wasn't said during the Problem Statement exercise, but perhaps a review is in order.
First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of decisions by the IESG about how much work they need to do and to what level of detail they need to address documents. To take a handy, but deliberately non-specific, example, if the IESG considers it appropriate to hold a document up over the wording of a title or abstract, and to debate that wording, the cycles that go into the discussion are, however indirectly, a contribution to the IESG's becoming a full time job. I would rather see the IESG fix that than having the community apply whatever blunt instruments it has --and there are some signs that the current IESG might make some steps in the right direction. But, to the extent to which the Nomcom selects people who are happy having the IESG be a full time job, rather than dedicated to getting that workload down, the Nomcom and the community are endorsing what we then complain about.
Second, there are well-known phenomena in many political systems that lead people to say "well, that body consists mostly of scum, but my representative is a good guy". The US Congress has turned into a particularly striking example, but it is by no means unique. The attitude creates a very strong bias toward reselection of incumbents. I suggest that the community, and the Nomcoms, end up suffering from the same phenomenon and that, if we don't like the symptoms that seem to come with people who have been on the IESG for too long, we need to start thinking about ways to adjust the system to prevent the "too long" situation.
Finally (at least for this note), the rate at which incumbents are returned if they are willing to put up with more punishment suggests that Nomcoms are asking not whether someone new could do the job about as well but whether they could do a better job than the incumbent. Unless an incumbent is perceived as having really screwed up, the answer to that question will almost always be "no". If nothing else, IESG roles are complex and anyone new will lose some number of weeks or months reading into the role. Also someone new is always an uncertainty and it is rational and normal for, e.g., a WG Chair to advise the nomcom that a particular AD should be returned based on logic of "I have figured out how to work with this one, even though it is sometimes difficult; I wouldn't look forward to breaking in a new one, risking a worse relationship, etc." In addition to the "too long in position" issues raised above, this interacts with the workload and volunteers problem: Indicating availability for one of these positions, and then staying available, is itself a big commitment. That is a commitment not just for an individual but for a company. It is tolerable if there is a reasonable expectation of getting the position and having an opportunity to serve. But, if the odds are high that the incumbent will be returned no matter what, the incentives to get the needed approvals and resources lined up are really very poor. We are hence seeing problems convincing people to put their names in the pot against the name of an incumbent who is doing even a passable job... and I predict that will get worse.
There are ways to fix, or at least significantly improve, things along each of those dimensions. But I don't think the community is really interested enough to consider them seriously, much less push them through. And that, I suggest, gives us exactly the leadership structures and behaviors we deserve and presumably want.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf