It's true that there is no one obvious right answer. However, we are not lacking in data about all the three conjectures you've proposed.
As to the first, we are having this conversation because this method is not producing a diversity of candidates.
As to the second, we are having this conversation because this method has been shown to be similarly sketchy.
As to the third, we have no data.
You see where I'm going with this? :)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:44:54PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The thing is, AD is a job. Do we want the job to be done well, or not?
> If we want it to be done well, why is it a volunteer position?
The problem is that making it to be a job where the employer is a
non-profit isn't necessarily a much better option. (Not that many
top-notch engineers would be interested in taking a long-term job with
a non-profit who almost certainly can't pay as well as a Hi-Tech
for-profit corporation, and which by definition can't offer equity
compensation.)
So effectively either it needs to be:
* A volunteer position which can only really be staffed by someone
whose employer is willing to let them work on it as a full-time job.
(This tends to bias the IETF leadership to towards employee of large
firms like Cisco, Microsoft, etc.)
* A volunteer position structured so it really can be run by someone
holding down a full-time job (where multiple other volunteers are
helping the volunteer AD).
* A paid full-time job for someone who is willing to work for a
non-profit organization, and who is willing to resign from what is
almost certainly a much better paid position to take on a "Public
Service" role.
These choices all have trade-offs. So there is no one obvious right
answer.
- Ted
