On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:39:16PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> * ADs who come from different companies at least have, we hope,
> limited incentives to collude. Maybe we should be requiring
> most explicit and public disclosures about day job commitments
> and entanglements, but one of our protections come from the IETF
> being made of of people from competing (or at least
> non-affiliated) organizations. If everyone were paid by the
> IETF, that safeguard would presumably disappear, leaving people
> to promote their own collective ideas.
What are "their own collective ideas" ? I only understand "their own"
and "collective", but not what they'd mean together.
NomCom already needs to perform character and sponsoring judgments
and at least when i was in NomCom tried to avoid electing candidates
perceived by the community input to be company drones or self
grandiosing marketers. Adding IETF as a funding option just results
in more variety in those judgements. I think that would be a good
thing for more variety.
> * Even if you don't believe that, consider the pragmatic issues.
> People end up on the IESG at various stages of their careers and
> from different career paths. Would you expect all of them to be
> paid the same amount or for IETF-supplied salaries to reflect
> the most recent day job one?
Same amount. Separate travel budget (no business class), because
i fear diversity candidates might have to pay more to get to common
meeting places (travelling from far out places etc..).
NomCom could also decide on an offer. May be able to get younger
candidates for less money as the job could be a career improving
move for later.
> Also, while a company can make a
> decision to lend someone to the IETF for a few years and those
> who are self-employed can choose to reduce other workloads to
> make time for AD responsibilities, if someone is going to take a
> salary from the IETF, many (perhaps most) employment agreements
> would require that such a person either resign from the day job
> or be put on a leave of absence, possibly with guarantees about
> being allowed to return.
So somebody who could persuade his company to fully pay for the
AD role would stick to the current scheme, but we'd get new candidates
were the companies would not want to support the job role, and
maybe its also a reduction to 50% paid on the normal job, 50% by
IETF. Or as you described above 100% by IETF.
Your argument sounds like "something that doesn't work in all cases
shouldn't be tried at all".
> In some cases, the requirement would
> be for the salary to be paid by the IETF to the company and for
> the ADs to continue to draw their normal salaries, giving the
> worst of both worlds -- IETF spending the money with no effect
> on real or imagined conflicts of interest.
Sure. Payment only to the individual.
> Those kinds of
> issues all suggest that, even if "IETF pays ADs" were otherwise
> a good idea, which I don't believe it to be, sorting out all of
> the issues would be very complex and probably well beyond the
> limits of where this community can reach even rough consensus.
I don't see above issues as really problematic. I can definitely
see how there could be a lot of issues, not in the least how to pay
for someone who may be living on some place of the planet not called
USA. And creating more financial obligations.
> Of course, some of those problems would disappear if the ADs
> were hired by the IETF and expected to make the IESG a career,
> but the latter has not worked out well in the past even without
> being complicated by a compensation package.
Right. the current average terms seem to be a good thing for the
community.
Cheers
Toerless
> best,
> john
