On 3/3/2013 4:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs.
Finding qualified Transport ADs has been a continuing problem for a number of years. This year's impasse was inevitable. Whatever the problem, it's deep-seated.[*]
While the problem for Transport is extreme, it's generally difficult to find a good range of qualified candidates for AD. A major barrier is the time commitment to the job. And it's not really a 50% slot; the reality for most ADs seemed to be in the 75-100% range.
This is a massive cost to their employer, both in raw dollars and opportunity cost -- ADs are typically senior contributors. That means removing a strategic resource from the company's main activities. To take a senior contributor away usually requires that the company be very large and have a very deep bench of talent.
That's an onerous burden, in my view, and significantly reduces the pool of available candidates.
The IESG needs to decide that the job is a 25% job -- an actual terms -- and then decide what tasks are essential to perform within that amount of time. This will require a significant change in the way ADs do their work.
Reducing the real, budgeted time for an ADs job should significantly increase the pool of available candidates. As a side benefit, it should also significantly improve the diversity of the pool, along most parameters.
As an obvious example of what to change, it means that ADs need to change their paradigm for document review.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net