Re: CHANGE THE JOB (was Re: NOMCOM - Time-Critical - Final Call for Nominations)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Friday, October 18, 2013 07:58 +1300 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
> Nomcom can apply pretty much whatever criteria it wants to the
> selection process and Nomcom has been know to have some
> private negotiations with the IESG.  Nothing as profound as
> the change we are suggesting, but still...
> 
> So yes, an example of how Nomcom might independently deal with
> the current crisis is to announce a policy of looking for ADs
> who are willing to work no more than X% and then making a
> point of selecting such folk.
> 
> (Note that I'm saying something different from John.  He's
> caling for new folk who would "support" a change; I'm calling
> for new folk who are firm that they won't do more than X%.)

I am guessing that this problem, which took years to create,
would take some time to untangle and the effect of half the IESG
with a firm X% and "work to rule" commitment would either be
overloading the other half of the ADs and burning them out or
massive disruption as various groups jockeyed for priority.  So
I thought more in terms of firm commitments to start winding the
level of effort down to some future target rather than an
immediate limit (this is faintly reminiscent of different
proposals many years ago to put ceilings on the number of WGs --
agreement in principle, difference in methods for making the
transition).  

It occurs to me that, if X were pegged at a number much higher
than the ultimate target but somewhat lower then what we think
is going on today with the intention of lowering it further in
subsequent years, the two approaches might differ more in
principle than in practice.  

I note that the IESG has told the Nomcom (see the "A Few
Comments on the IESG Role" section of the "Desired Expertise"
sections on the Nomcom pages) that the "basic" activities
consume between 25 and 40 hours per week and then goes on to
talk about "approximately full-time" and "additional activities"
that "further increase the time commitment".   I also note that
three IETF meetings a year with travel and arrival a couple of
days early, plus a couple of retreats and associated travel, is
already 15-19% of a nominal FTE (circa 200 days a year) annual
commitment before any document reviews or other out-of-meeting
work is added in, so the "day a week or so" level that some of
us would like to see would require a _lot_ of changes and
adjustments.

My guess is that some current and recent IESG members would
consider a 40 hour a week average to be a significant reduction
in time commitment.  That is clearly much too high to also
expect someone to hold down serious day-job responsibilities,
but it might suggest 35-40 hours (whatever that is deemed to
mean in percentages) as an initial target under your X% proposal.

> It would be better for the IESG to take the initiative here
> and formally and publicly re-define the job, but it has so far
> ignored such requests.

Yes, although "ignored" might be too charitable.

> So Nomcom could start things towards that change on its own.

And there we agree, although I think that a responsible Nomcom
(and I hope all of them are and have been) would want to see a
significant show of support from the community for doing
something that might cause serious disruptions (and which I'm
sure some previous IESGs would insist _would_ cause serious
disruptions).

best,
   john





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]