On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 3:54 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> 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,
>
>
> It has been suggested many times. The suggestion has been ignored.
>
> We have been having some very serious recruitment problems for a number of years now. This year's crisis was entirely predictable.
>
> The only way the situation will change meaningfully is to make the job less onerous, and especially make it possible for the AD to continue doing real work for their company.
>
> ADs are senior folk. That makes them a strategic resource for their company. Or, at least, they'd better be. Only very large companies can afford to lose a strategic resource for years.
>
> Looking for alternative funding does not make the job less onerous and does not permit the AD to continue doing real work for their company.
>
> Re-define the bloody job. At a minimum, make the workload realistically no more than 50%, but I actually suggest trying for 25%, given that reality will increase the actual amount above that.
>
> This means taking the current list of AD tasks and deciding on the ones that absolutely cannot be done by others, and specifying other ways to do the remainder.
>
> d/
>
Hear hear +1
some ideas to decrease the work load
1) Limit on working groups in each area
2) Less review of documents our outsource reviews
3) Lower the voting threshold for document to pass
4) Reduce hurdles in processing
5) Assign tasks to different bodies
6) More competent WG chairs
7) Pick AD's that are less likely to nit pick documents
8) ignore process nazi's and streamline process.
9) Ignore external bodies
10) Cut the number of AD's fewer people fewer arguments
Olafur
PS: disclaimer I'm on NOMCOM so please volunteer