Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 10, 2015, at 3:55 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 15:23 -0500 Kathleen Moriarty > <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ... >> I'm sure some of these involve new WGs, but it's also >> important to consider the role of an AD as a manager. With >> that I mean coaching attempts should be made first to help >> chairs that are either new to the job or handling a tough WG. >> Seeing chairs turn around a WG that is tough can be impressive >> and may be very helpful to the ongoing success of that WG. >> The chairs will be more motivated and if helped in a way that >> works for them (management style) could lead to a more >> productive chair and WG. > > Kathleen, while I agree, I also see an opportunity for reducing, > rather than increasing, AD workload in that respect. We've got > a lot of people around who have successfully led WGs before, > served on the IAB or IESG, etc. In many cases, they can take > the role of coach and advisor to a new chair. It may or may not > make any difference whether that coaching role is called > "coach", "mentor", "area advisor" (a term I'm sorry went out of > use or become synonymous with "responsible AD"), or co-chair as > long as those people understand that their role is helping, > advising, etc., rather than running the WGs. The AD still needs > to manage things to the extent of being sure that things are > working and rearranging personnel when they are not (I think we > do too little of the latter), but doesn't need to be the > frontline coach. I do appreciate your points and have done a mix of the above. In a number of cases, the WGs I work with have experienced chairs that are excellent mentors, so there isn't much to do on that front. In other cases, a few helpful calls to assist newer WG chairs has paid off in leaps and bounds. And then there are other cases, where replacing is the best option. I wouldn't dream of discussing any of the details on a public mailing list, but I've had all 3 occur. My point was that I don't think you should automatically jump to replacing chairs if you can quickly get to the root of a problem and help the chairs, even behind the scenes. We won't develop good future leaders if we just fire people and provide no coaching. I don't think that was your intent, but maybe I wasn't clear that I see the usefulness in each of the options and being a good manager is knowing which is best when. A couple of coaching points may save a lot more AD time than replacing chairs. There should be balance and the ability to do what makes the most sense. If we want to improve our culture, we should be looking at these types of options, otherwise who would want to chair WGs? (Rhetorical). Best regards, Kathleen > > john > > >