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

[Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:52, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Adding more certainly doesn't help. Reducing the number could help if we have a concomitant increase in the usefulness of directorates.  But it doesn't solve the problem.  If we learn to adjust to having fewer ADs, and the trend toward a smaller more homogeneous candidate pool continues, we end up with just a Chair and maybe 1-2 ADs, plus a lot of (appointed) "assistants".  That could work, but let's decide explicitly if that's the trajectory we want to be on.

I suspect we may find that more people would be able to find the time and resource to do AD-like tasks for a handful of hours per week, rather than having to find support to commit for 40 hours per week. Helping on a directorate is, for example, not an onerous task, but it (I hope) helps the ADs.

As it stands, WG chairs have the option to appoint a secretary, for some level of help. The question I asked in the original email was whether ADs should have the option to appoint one or more assistants to help them. It seems that there's a lot to be said for such a model.  Potential future ADs could contribute the time they do have, and in doing so get a better feel for what the full AD role would be like, while the ADs would get some extra resource/help, which could reduce the amount of time they need to spend, making the role more attractive/feasible to them. 

The question is how we answer Scott's last sentence above.  It could be a good topic to put on the admin plenary agenda in Vancouver.

Tim