On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I don't think the Assistant AD job would be easy to define > or even the right approach. IMO doubling the number of ADs > would probably work better, although at an increased cost > wrt/ managing the review process. I do not agree that > every AD needs to review every draft. The review > and WG management tasks should be shared by 4 people > instead of 2 people. > > The problem I see is that few people are both qualified > and able to do full-time volunteer work for the IESG. > There is a disconnect between the official job requirements > and the real job requirements that is being ignored here. > > Perhaps if the AD job really was only 20 hours a week > there would be a lot more people willing and able to > accept a nomination. > For better or worse I told the nomcom that I only have 2 hours a day (7 days a week) for this… They took me anyway. The load is unevenly distributed. The internet and routing and Apps ADs appear to have more drafts to process and more complex working group interactions, then does the ops side of ops and management. That said, this is not a not a full time job for me and I am not compensated for doing it. If my level of available commitment isn't adequate, I guess we'll find out between now and the 2 year mark. My contribution to the things that bring me to the IETF as on operator have dropped off because I don't have time for them. joel > > Andy > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have asked you and other ADs several times if Assistant ADs would help. > > The answer I got was "not really, but a well run directorate really helps.". > > OK. Doesn't sound like refusing to consider. Sounds like answering your > question. > > So let's take it to the next step because it may be that the current IESG cannot > conceive of how an assistant AD would work. > > Can you put up a strawman of the job tasks of an assistant AD that we can work > with to discuss whether this has legs? > Would assistant ADs be appointed and work for sitting ADs, or would they be > NomCom appointments? > Can't an AD already delegate anything they want (except the responsibility)? > > > Why not double the number of ADs in each area and instead of > > every AD reviewing every draft, have 2 ADs from each area > > review each draft? (Cut the AD hours in half somehow) > > There is mileage in that. I don't think every AD reviews every document. Some > pairs of ADs consciously split the load. Some ADs don't do detailed reviews of > documents in other areas or just focus on specific topics. > > But we must get off the idea that document review is the whole of the AD load. I > think it is only around 15-20%. Maybe that rises with pursuit of Discusses > (moral: don't raise Discusses). That doesn't mean that other parts of the load > couldn't be shifted. > > Cheers, > Adrian > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail