So, how about keeping everything the same (NomCom et.al.) but offering elected ADs financial sponsoring through ISOC as an option. Shouldn't that improve the outcome by creating more diversity of candidates ? -- Toerless On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It's interesting that it's seen by quite a few people who have responded to this idea that an AD who is paid by the IETF would be _less_ neutral than an AD who is paid by some company that's sending them to the IETF. I would like to think that the ADs that nomcom appoints would be neutral in either case, but it seems to me that the incentives for an AD to play favorites are worse, not better, if the AD works for a company than if they are paid by the IETF, all other factors being equal. Of course, if companies that want to buy ADs were able to do so, that would be bad, but if the funding commitment is made in advance of AD selection, I don't see how that would happen. Maybe I'm just naive? > > Yes you are. As Andrew points out, there is plenty of evidence of organizations captured by staff. Yes there is a possibility of AD influenced by their companies' agenda, but this is balanced by short terms and by diversity of companies. With staff you would get longer terms and fewer diversity. > > -- Christian Huitema
