--On Thursday, October 17, 2013 15:54 +0100 Tim Chown
<tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17 Oct 2013, at 15:09, NomCom Chair 2013
> <nomcom-chair-2013@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> A critically low number of people have accepted nominations
>> for some of the IESG open positions. There is only one
>> nominee per slot in APP, OPS and TSV, only two in INT and
>> RAI. Many folks have declined nominations.
>>
>> While the Nomcom appreciates that support for two years of
>> intense service is hard to assure, and while we are aware
>> that there is much support for the incumbents who are
>> standing, the IETF should continually be considering which
>> new talent is available for our leadership, and the Nomcom
>> process needs for there to be some review and deliberation.
>
> I believe the "intense service" you mention is a significant
> deterrent for many.
>
> I'm sure it's been suggested before, but is there mileage in
> rethinking the AD roles, and either the number of ADs per
> area, or whether introducing Assistant ADs or similar might
> allow people who can contribute less time to do so, while
> easing the burden on the main ADs?
You could add the economic costs to the time costs on that list.
Worse, unless something intervenes or one really hates the job,
it is really a four year commitment if only because it takes a
year or more to really settle into the job and leaving after two
years feels like a bad return on that investment (to both the AD
and the community).
> Just a thought anyway. Personally, I'd assume that some people
> would be more willing to help if deemed to have the skills
> required, but the time constraints are, as many ADs will
> confirm if you chat with them, the blocking factor.
A few observations, fwiw...
(1) The time and resource commitment required of ADs is largely,
but not entirely, of the IESG's own making. People get selected
who have the time and resources and the job and/or perception of
things for which IESG members need to take personal
responsibility tend to expand to more than fill the available
time. I've given the opinion to a number of Nomcoms that the
problem will just get worse unless they select people who see
that expansion of the role as a problem and have plans for how
to fix it (or at least a good-faith intent to support such
plans). My impression is that it hasn't ranked high in Nomcom
priorities so, if it is important to others, more people need to
say it.
At the same time, it is hard to blame the IESG for a lot of the
problem. The community has not been supportive of efforts to
push back on formation of WGs nor of shutting down ones that are
unproductive or that cannot reach reasonable levels of consensus
about their work. The "chief representative of the IETF
community to external communities" has shifted from the IAB
Chair to the IETF one. Whether that is a good thing or a bad
one, it inevitably means that more of the consultation burden
falls on IESG members, increasing workload. Many documents
reach IETF Last Call and get almost no comments, so we expect
IESG members to be responsible for doing the evaluations (or
evaluations of "area reports" from people who may not know the
technology being proposed) themselves. Perhaps we should be
firing ADs for letting those documents go into Last Call in the
first place but, unless we are going to cut off the WG that
produce them, it is hard to believe that would be sensible (even
if there were lots of spare candidates).
(2) The Nomcom doesn't have a lot of control in this space. The
number of ADs per area is set by the IESG, not the Nomcom, and
the Nomcom has little choice other that to try to fill the
positions (there have been debates over the years as to whether
a Nomcom could actually refuse to fill a position but certainly
it should not consider trying except in the most dire of
circumstances). ADs have tremendous flexibility about how they
manage their areas and several of your suggestions could be
adopted unilaterally by a sitting AD (or the ADs in one area)
with no formal community or even IESG approval needed. If it is
important enough, we could tell Nomcoms to start firing (or
refusing to appoint) ADs who don't show good management and
delegation skills but, if we did that any they listened, they
might have to prioritize management skills over technical skills
and understanding and it is possible that wouldn't work out well
(and would give us even more professional standardizers and
process folks rather than technical experts who are willing and
able to devote a few years to community service on the IESG).
In other words, while I mostly agree with you, it is too late
for most of the issues and remedies by the time the Nomcom
issues a call for Nominations.
just my (very jaded) opinion.
john