On 2013-10-21, at 10:28, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We've been told a reason for decline about 10 times so far. Half of those cited the time commitment and uncertainty of support by their employer, the other half cited only their support for the incumbent. Sometimes people say that they won't try to get the support by their employer because they support the incumbent so they think their own candidacy isn't needed. My sense of the feedback I have seen so far (and it's certainly true for me) is quite simple: - the perception is that doing a good job on the IESG is pretty much a full-time commitment - I don't have enough free time to do that outside my day job. I have children, and the transhumanists have not produced an effective way to live without sleep yet. - My employer, although demonstrably willing and able to dedicate resources to the IETF for the good of the Internet, wants me working on other things than just "IESG" during work hours - I didn't volunteer I'm not suggesting that I'd be of any use on the IESG anyway, but the current conversation seems to be more about the number of volunteers than the quality of the volunteers. If the perception in the first ASCIIbullet above is inaccurate, then it makes sense to correct it. Joel's estimate of how much the Ops Area AD role consumes for him was different, for example. I think the concern that the number of people available within the constraints above to dedicate time to the IESG is low and represents an institutional bias is reasonable. There's no way that a resource-stretched, panic-mode, regional ISP is going to be able to pull their top talent away from the burning routers and send them full-time to review drafts and push paper for the IETF, for example. This is not going to make the oft-cited concern about operator involvement in the IETF any better. Joe