> 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! +1 > 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. Speaking as someone who worked for a startup during the time I was on the IESG and IAB, the main issue was always time, not money. Money can usually be found, but nobody has figured out a way to create more time. (More's the pity.) A startup needs your attention now. It cannot be deferred. The same thing goes for consultancies: Clients lost because you don't have time for them now are not easily regained later. I also spent many years in academia, and while in theory things there are more flexible, in practice... not so much. > 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. Agree 100%. AFAICT the most that can be done is to try to be as flexible as possible in accomodating candidates with unusual backgrounds and requirements. But this needs to be done - and IME has been done - on a case-by-case basis. Ned
