What I am getting at here is that the role is always a paid role; the question is whether it's paid by sponsors through the IETF, or whether it's paid by corporations to their own employees who are given leave to spend most of their time being ADs. Anybody we'd want in an AD role would have no trouble getting hired after they finished holding the position, and we already know that it's pretty typical for ADs who are sponsored by corporations to wind up effectively having to start an internal job hunt after their AD position has ended because their old position got filled by someone else when they didn't have enough time to keep it going. We've seen in several instances recently that the imagined job security of being employed by some external corporation while AD isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Your approach of finding funding yourself isn't a bad one either, of course, but the problem with it is that it's a "try nothing new" approach—it worked for you because of your circumstances, but isn't generalizable. If I wanted to be AD again, I think I could probably do it the way you did (fortunately I don't). But now you're fund-raising when you could be working—this works, of course, but is it really a better approach than just addressing that problem independently? The way I would expect this to would would simply be that the IETF would solicit sponsorships for AD positions, at a certain pay rate, and if someone was appointed, they'd get paid. I don't think there would be a "reimburse the employer" process—the AD would just get paid, and it would be a contract with a clear termination date, and exit clauses for termination with cause by the IETF AD removal process.
As for getting rid of nomcom and terms if ADs are paid, I guess anything could happen, and I agree with you that that would be a really bad outcome. The RFC that described this new procedure, if one were written, would have to talk about how to prevent that. Maybe the IAB could help...
What I meant by the last paragraph that you found confusing is that this is a thought experiment for me. I don't know that it's the right thing to do, but I think that it's a possible thing we could do, and if we think it's the wrong thing to do, we should come up with better reasons why it's the wrong thing to do. The best reason I can come up with is that it might be hard to actually get sponsorship for the number of ADs we currently have, not because the money isn't there, but because it's in the wrong budgets.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=
>
> 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
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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
