On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
First of all, just because the IETF pays support doesn't meant
the person becomes an employee of the IETF. This should rather be
handled as it is for politicians (and hopefully the amount of time
in an AD role is short enough that there will be no entrenchment
to the financing body).
Secondly, we already do have i think experiences with ADs that where
where fully paid by their company, but had not that much success in
getting back into their job role. I would argue that the ability to
receive payments from the IETF does not change that risk. It only opens
the opportunity to run into that risk to more candidates.
> Paying travel and hotel expenses might be an idea, though. In places
> I've worked, that would have made quite a difference.
Sure. And given these expensive IETF locations, maybe just offering
to cover official AD business travel costs might already make a difference
in the pool of candidates.
Cheers
Toerless
> 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
