John C Klensin wrote:
Ralph,
An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected perspective.
But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I think it would be
useful to hear from others, especially those who have put in a few terms
as WG chairs or doc editors, on this. What I've heard, very
indirectly, from some nomcoms is that they sometimes return incumbents,
in spite of seeing a need for turnover, because they have had no
plausible alternatives. To the extent to which that is a real issue, I
think it means two things to the community:
(i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change things
around until there are alternatives. That might involve workload/ work
description changes, training alternatives and more "leadership
development", or other factors, but it seems to me that the question is
becoming critical-path.
One point is that it is very hard to convey the reality of what it
means to be an AD except by giving somebody the job. Like any other
job, the description doesn't convey the reality. Even having sat on
IESG calls for some years while I was IAB Chair, the reality of
actually being an AD (even for a tiny little area like the General
Area) was a surprise. Even for those who were ADs a few years ago,
I'm sure the current reality would carry a few surprises.
But the ADs are all human and all had to learn to be an AD. I think there
are a lot more people in the IETF who would be *capable* of doing the
job than the NomCom hears about. Please don't be modest, when the call
for nominations comes around again.
(ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne questions
about areas and IETF capabilities. In particular, suppose we have an
area that has so little leadership depth that the nomcom does not have
reasonable choices of AD candidates. Is it time to declare that the IETF
lacks the resources to pursue the work of that area in an effective way
and then shut it down? That is not a propoosal, just a question that, I
believe, deserves serious thought.
We also have (when I last checked) *more* I-Ds pouring in than ever before.
So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have people entering this
community who are smart and motivated and should be considered for
WG responsibilities. And I find it hard to believe that among our ~200
WG chairs we don't have people who should be considered for IESG
responsibilities. In other words, I think we all have a duty to ensure
that NomCom hears about the talent that we do have available.
Brian
john
--On Thursday, May 05, 2005 08:48 -0400 Ralph Droms <rdroms@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
John - editing to get directly to your questions:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term
or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors,
owed the community?
I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't
chosen to fulfill. I have seriously considered allowing the
nomcom to add my name to the list of candidates for AD a
couple of times (and may have left may name on the list once,
but I can't recall with certainty), but have always decided
against it in the end. I have the delusion that I would be
able to make a positive contribution. However, from what I've
been able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not
been willing to make the professional and personal tradeoffs
(even sacrifices) required to fulfill the responsibilities.
And, I already seem to have a life sentence as chair of the
dhc WG...
(2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order
to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you? Please
don't just answer "lower workload": if that is all or part of
the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do
with it?
I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make
it plausible. More important would be to find myself in a
professional and personal situation where I, my family and my
employer would be willing to commit the necessary time (15-25
hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel to fulfill the commitments.
- Ralph
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf