Hiya, Getting to the specific ickiness... On 26/07/18 00:28, Ted Lemon wrote: > 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. Ick. So then we'd have 10 QUIC ADs? And maybe 10 from up-and-coming companies from up-and-coming places working in up-and-coming spaces. And of course, we'd be motivating companies to get rid of what they might currently consider problematic AD roles - so no more of those pesky security ADs say the rich (e.g. routing) companies de-jure? I can imagine them earnestly explaining how they just don't have dosh this year for that role, and are genuinely sorry. Ick. If you really wanted a sponsorship scheme, the money would need to be thoroughly laundered, which then hands control to the laundry. It's just a bad plan. > 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. Do you know that according to Irish (and likely other EU) labour law, that'd mean that a 4th AD term would entitle that person to a full-time permanent employee position? That's good legislation IMO, but I do not think the IETF ought be risking it applying for the AD role. And of course, if a recall ever happened, then the money involved would make a law suit quite likely. But a much more likely a bad consequence, is that whomever is the sponsor may expect that "their" AD would act in their interests. We have in the past seen such motivations impact on nomcom, and I have very occasionally seen ADs worry about potential hidden agendas of other ADs. What you're suggesting would make all that much worse, and likely quite quickly. None of this is worth the time we've spent on these emails. It's just a bad idea - wrong target (guaranteeing time), wrong method (sponsorship) and IMO guaranteed wrong outcome (death to nomcom;-) Cheers, S. PS: I do agree that the end of an AD's term is tricky, in very many cases. That's another reason to try reduce the time needed without affecting the rest of the AD's week. It is not a reason to try fund 100% paid-for ADs. OTOH, what Christian and Warren have said is entirely true (of me at least) - I learned a whole lot doing the AD thing, and I feel the better for that, so it's well worth doing.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
