Hiya, On 25/07/18 23:18, Ted Lemon wrote: > This is what I'm getting at. These discussions have been going on for a > long time, and nothing much has come of it, because (I think) once you're > in the position and get what it entails, it tends to become as large as > you're willing to allow it to become. I agree with that. > I will point out that Stephen is speaking from a position of privilege when > he talks about not wanting it to be a paid role, or job, or whatever verbal > gymnastics you want to use to describe it. That's how it was for me too, > so I'm not entitled to criticize, I disagree with the proposition that having found a way to get paid whilst being an AD disqualifies one from commenting on the topic. It is as appropriate for you to criticise your bad idea as for me:-) > but I would say that a pretty large > number of the people in the IETF who would be qualified to take on the role > simply can't, because they couldn't get funded to do it. Yep. If you assume I was ever qualified, that applied in my case, for a number of nomcom cycles. At one point my funding and a nomcom cycle aligned and I ended up trying to be an AD for a bit. (And my issue wasn't ever lack of funding for day#1 of being an AD, it was having current and usable research funding that spanned the time from the nomcom interview to the end of the 2-year term, which isn't actually the most likely thing to happen.) > How does the > same job, but funded, become a bureaucratic role with people flying first > class? Did I suggest abolishing the nomcom? IMO, yes, you implicitly did. If ADs were paid, that'd not work for just 2 year terms. The inevitable consequence would be ADs being in the "job" (as it would then become) until they expire, as would nomcom. It'd take a while but would be IMO a sure bet. > Do students on scholarship > suddenly start wearing suits and flying first class due to their new-found > wealth? Not with the dosh we give 'em:-) > > The fact is, as far as I can tell, that the ADs who have time to do the job > really well are being paid to spend as much time on it as they need to, and > that is why they are able to do a really good job at it. Disagree. I could quote cases of time- or resource-constrained folks who I think did a fine job. And of time or resource-rich folks who I think were crap. But naming either wouldn't be a good plan I guess:-) I do assert that I've seen both whilst on the IESG. I also claim that I saw no strong correlation between available time and excellence or crappiness in carrying out the AD role. Mostly it was down to the person's technical capability and personality. Aiming for less time being required of ADs is a good goal, but aiming to guarantee plenty of time is, I think, a bad goal. > Right now, those > ADs come from a fairly small number of companies, and that number is > dwindling. Ahem. Some academics have acted in the AD role, and still do. I think the relatively fewer axes one has to grind makes having 2-3 academics as ADs a good idea. I do agree that the relevance of the IETF and IESG for for-profit companies changes over time. But is "dwindling" actually right? I think we see different companies (who are currently on the "up") providing folks for the AD role these days, which is ok. We also see much more centralisation of companies involved in the Internet, which I think applies to AD employers as much as anything else. > One thing we can do is to simply have ADs do so much less that > it becomes something that can be hidden inside a real job doing something > else. Another is that we can own the fact that people need to be paid to > do the work, and ask the question of whether those people should be paid > directly by some corporation, or whether the role should be funded in a way > that is a bit more egalitarian. I await your egalitarian proposal. I don't believe such a thing exists that wouldn't have the inevitable consequence of killing nomcom. And I'd personally hate anything that involved some of the richest companies ever having their costs for employees who do the AD thing being re-imbursed. I also doubt that many people would believe having those same companies sponsor all the ADs would give much of a perception of independence. But perhaps you have some idea of how to better launder that dosh so it can pay for ADs without such things being a worry. > > I am not claiming that the answer is that it should be an IETF-funded > role. What I'm saying is that I haven't heard a response to my suggestion > that was anything other than that it should indeed be a paid role, just not > paid by the IETF. I can't parse that last sentence. But in case it helps, while I was an AD I did get paid. Not that much, and from various funders, mostly involving the pretence that I was doing research, which pretence was mostly fine with most funders. Thing was, it was up to me to organise that dosh, and that's a good thing IMO. Just as ADs should pay to register at an IETF meeting, they should bring their own salary IMO. Cheers, S. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:56 PM Brian E Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 26/07/2018 03:26, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>>> There is also a problem with directorate reviews of highly variable >>>> quality. I don't want to name any names but I have seen reviews from >>>> the X directorate that said absolutely nothing about the X aspects of >>>> the reviewed draft and merely commented on a couple of things the >>>> automated nits checker complained about. Such "reviews" are virtually >>>> a no-op. >>> >>> Of course, if an AD decided to delegate authority to a review team, >>> that would require that the AD also trusted the review team to >>> do its job correctly. At the moment, review teams are *not* formally >>> on the hook, but if they were to hold real power, they would need >>> to be explicitly responsible to the community. >>> >>> As John Klensin implied, it's really up to the IESG. If the IESG wants >>> to limit its workload, that means giving up some of its power. Something >>> for the NomCom to consider when evaluating candidates. >>> >> >> Why do you believe that the IESG hasn't limited its workload? >> Given that, I believe, the majority of ADs are not essentially full-time, >> what >> changes do you all see as needed? >> >> Much of this conversation feels like a discussion from 6-8 years ago. >> >> Regards, >> Alia >> >> >> >>> Brian >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Donald >>>> =============================== >>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >>>> 1424 Pro Shop Court >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1424+Pro+Shop+Court&entry=gmail&source=g>, >>> Davenport, FL 33896 USA >>>> d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter >>>> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 25/07/2018 15:53, Ted Lemon wrote: >>>>>> The problem with review teams is that if you don't read the documents >>> and >>>>>> don't know what they are about, you don't have the overview that >>> allows for >>>>>> synthesis. One of the advantages of having people who review "all" >>> the >>>>>> documents is that stuff occurs to those people because they see >>> connections >>>>>> that people who don't review "all" the documents don't get. I put >>> "all" >>>>>> in quotes because it's never really all, but even so, ADs definitely >>> have a >>>>>> bird's eye view that is not shared by anyone else. >>>>> >>>>> It's true. But do you have any other ideas how to *substantially* >>>>> reduce the AD workload? >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter < >>>>>> brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 25/07/2018 01:41, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>> I think that as AD my time was consumed because I made a point of >>>>>>> reading, >>>>>>>> or at least skimming, all drafts prior to publication looking for >>>>>>> security >>>>>>>> specific issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So would things be better if we formalized the area review teams so >>>>>>> that they perform this function directly and can officially register >>> "No >>>>>>> Objection" in the IESG ballot, with the AD only being involved when >>> the >>>>>>> suggested ballot is "Yes", "Discuss" or "Abstain"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (We've been talking about AD overload for >10 years, so maybe it's >>>>>>> time to actually change something.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
