Hi,
First it would be good to confirm (from NOMCOM?) why people are rejecting
AD nominations. IMO asking 25 - 40 hours a week for 2 years is too much,
but I am guessing that 1/2 of that is the right number to require.
I was surprised to hear that document review took only around 20%
of the time. If so, then changing the review process won't help.
How many ADs are managers or directors in their day job?
How many have managed 15 - 30 employees before?
There is an large imbalance in the IESG between technical and management skills.
I really think paying for professional management services would help.
Andy
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 15:42, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The question to my mind is which tasks are you looking to off-load.
> ADs already can ask for assistance in many ways. Most use directorates. Some use them a lot. Some use them only a little.
> [Yes, I have an opinion about how to handle an area directorate that tells the AD "no, we will not do more reviews for you." But even that is not as easy as one would like.]
>
> Assuming we don't want to change the basic functioning and review, the ADs themselves need to be sufficiently informed of issues to engage in discussion with the other ADs about issues. That requires a fair amount of work.
I think at a high level it could be as simple as ADs being able to appoint one or two assistants each with whom they can work closely to help achoeve whatever it is they need. Just as they can with directorates. But the assistant(s) might be on a more accountable footing, much as a WG chair is.
Tim
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 10/20/13 10:31 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:52, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto: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