On 7/25/18 8:19 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Again, you assume that full-time ADs is a good thing. I do not > agree that that's a good goal. I don't, either, with an exclamation mark! We keep having this same discussion and it keeps being somewhat unfocused and disorganized, with people proposing solutions before we've got much clarity about what problems we're trying to solve. I think it's worth pointing out (as we always do when we have this discussion) that we tend to get IESG members from large companies, because that's whose employers can afford it. I think it's pretty clearly the case that not having enough candidates, not having many candidates from startups, academia (pace Stephen), or consultancies, and having those positions turn into extremely time-consuming gigs are all related. People whose employers don't object to them spending massive amounts of time on AD responsibilities are going to tend to be people who aren't going to have as much reason to object to those roles growing in scope. Aside from wouldn't-it-be-nice-to-have-more-candidates, I tend to think it would be nice to have a greater variety of candidates, as well, but the current responsibilities and structure are going to tend to militate against that. (and yes, there are a lot of unhelpful directorate reviews). Melinda
