On Oct 19, 2006, at 2:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that potential candidates who (i) clearly understand what is involved in the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas about how the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the workload should be taken very seriously rather than dismissed because they cannot make the commitment to meet these "requirements".
I would agree with that. That said, having sat in the seat, I'm not sure that folks who haven't done the job have a good way of estimating what it requires. Once in the seat, they can try their ideas and see how well they work.
But I don't think the nomcom is likely to say "you only said you could work half time so we will not select you". What these notes are more about is giving the potential nominee an idea what s/he is getting him/herself into. Someone who thinks that they can do the job on five hours a week by, perhaps, effectively organizing and utilizing a panel of expert reviewers can put their name in and say "I think I can get the job done". In this note, however, they have something the incumbents have reviewed and found consistent with their experience. The message is that someone who finds the picture daunting probably shouldn't agree to be nominated.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf