On 29/07/2018 04:31, Toerless Eckert wrote: > 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 ? I don't think that paying a salary would work out well. Even if an employer was willing to making such an arrangement (and it would be complicated, with international tax and social security issues), it might be harmful to the person's career, because the employer would end up paying someone else to do the person's job, and after 2 or 4 years they'd discover that they didn't need the person back again. Paying travel and hotel expenses might be an idea, though. In places I've worked, that would have made quite a difference. On 29/07/2018 06:52, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > If given such a choice, it would be interesting to know if the community > would prefer a candidate whom may have more time (say 100%) to spend on the > AD role but may be less qualifed or a candidate whom may have less time > (say 50%) but may be more qualifed. What’s more important? Doing less > work with higher potential quality, or more work with more moderate quality > ? *Definitely* the second choice. A good AD knows how to delegate anyway; getting WG Chairs and document reviewers to do their jobs properly is probably the most important thing an AD can do. This relates to my previous point: an AD who does nothing for her or his nominal employer for 2 or 4 years is taking a career risk. Brian
