Ted, it sounds like you're suggesting that right now there's no bias, and if this change were made, it would create bias. The reality is that if we did exactly the change you suggest, it would indeed shift the bias away from people who can get corporate sponsorship to those who can afford to take bigger risks/work for less money. Of course, that's not the only way to do it—we could also make it available as an option, while allowing the old form of sponsorship as well. What's the old quote, "the law, in its infinite grandeur, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges...."
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 06:23:40PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ADs don’t choose their terms: nomcom does.
So this biases the people available to nomcom to those people who are
either (a) consultants, or (b) willing to resign from their well-paid
corporate job to take a job with a non-profit SDO.
I don't believe this will result increasing the quality of the slate
of candidates available to Nomcom compared to what we have now. Which
was the whole point of this proposal, was it not?
- Ted
