Hiya, On 26/07/18 01:11, Ted Lemon wrote: > Obviously the sponsorship can't have strings attached. If you want there > to be a QUIC AD, you had better make sure that there's enough funding for > all the AD positions that exist. You suggest that this would make things > worse in terms of corporate control of the IESG, but if you take such a > pessimistic view, that's already the status quo. No. I'm neither pessimistic (since I don't believe your idea will fly), nor do I agree that your proposal is equivalent to the status-quo. Yours is worse IMO. > There is the potential > for a feedback loop if you can stack the IESG, but one thing that > sponsorships allow is for orgs that can't afford to fund an FTE can still > participate, Again, you assume that full-time ADs is a good thing. I do not agree that that's a good goal. > as with your term, which you say required multiple sponsors at > the same time. I didn't say that. It was different funders sequentially in my case. Honestly though - in the absence of any worked-out proposal isn't it time to end this thread or take it offlist? I'm happy to chat more but unhappy to be boring the full list, which I suspect is what we're doing. Cheers, S. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> 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" processâ€â€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
