--On Friday, 20 October, 2006 17:11 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that these
>> "requirements" are the opinions of the incumbents of what it
>> takes to do the jobs as they see them.
>
> To be very precise, and speaking only about the IESG
> positions since I can't speak for the IAB on this, those
> descriptions are the collective opinion of the IESG as
> a whole, not the individual opinions of the incumbents on
> their own positions.
Thank you, that is useful information.
>> That is important
>> input, but I question whether it should be controlling for
>> either applicants or Nomcom decisions. In particular, while,
>> e.g., the introduction to the "IESG Requirements" document
>> seems to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the
>> role requires "between 25 and 40 hours per week" and the IETF
>> Chair one indicates that the job is full-time. I don't know
>> whether there is community consensus for this view,
>
> It isn't a view. It's a statement of fact.
The statement of fact is that the incumbents have interpreted
their jobs in a way that causes those jobs to take that much
time. Part of the job descriptions given, and that presumably
lead to the required level of time commitment, derive from clear
statements of community desires and requirements as laid out in
consensus BCP documents. Part of it derives from IESG (or
individual AD) inferences and decisions about how to respond to
other types of demands from the IETF community or from outside.
While some of those decisions are obvious --i.e., there don't
seem to be alternates without drastic revisions to those base
documents-- others are, perhaps, not.
Suppose potential candidates exist in the community who believe
that they have ideas that would significantly rearrange the
workload --within the bounds established by existing,
documented, procedures-- so as to make the community less
dependent on two-year commitments of huge blocks of time from a
small number of individuals and, consequently, see the time
commitment required by the job differently. I am expressing the
hope that such people would apply for the positions, and
initiate a dialogue with the Nomcom about them, without being
unreasonably deterred by incumbent job descriptions and time
estimates. I also hope that the Nomcom would take such
candidacies seriously and would evaluate the hypotheses about
different ways to structure the roles (again, within the bounds
identified in consensus documents) in a careful and serious way,
rather than checking off "not willing to commit as much time as
the descriptions claim is necessary".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf