On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 07:33:55PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> A little less catastrophization might make this conversation more fun! :)
>
> Seriously, each of the questions you're asking implies a fairly obvious
> answer. For example, fundraising: this is straightforward: always have
> enough money to pay all the ADs for the next year or two. Figure out how
> to raise that money. If it's not available, then this option isn't open
> to us: end of story. Once that endowment exists, keep funding it. If the
> funding dries up, oh well, we tried. The only way to find out if this is
> possible is to try it; the only reason to try it is that we think it's
> worth trying. I think this conversation is about whether we think it's
> worth trying (the running consensus appears to be "no," but we haven't
> heard much from people who would have tried for IESG if this option were
> available).
1) As mentioned in my prior email, maybe we want to start asking NomCom
if they can investigate lack of funding as a possible reason for
limited candidate pools. Aka: ask nominees that withdraw if/how future
options for funding sources could have changed their decision to withdraw.
2) Then the next step could be to look for funding sources. I am obviously
clueless about those options (thanks, valdis).
3) Third step would be to revisit in more detail the most beneficial
policies for such funding.
Maybe these can be done in parallel, but so far we've only discussed
point 3, and it seems obvious that we guess about point 1) and more
evidence would be very helpfull.
Btw: Alias suggestion goes IMHO also to point 1 - have NomCom provide
candidates pondering whether to accept/negotiate with their current
employers all the material we can provide to make them succeed in
getting funding from thei employer by being able to pitch up the value of
AD work for their employer (and for them).
Cheers
Toerless
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:59:32PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > > 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..."
> >
> > I wasn't referring to the bias that the people might hold, but the
> > bias of the sort of people that would stand for selection by Nomcom if
> > it required them to resign from their present job and be paid
> > non-profit wages by a SDO.
> >
> > If you are saying that it would be an option (so either their current
> > employer could choose to keep them on their payroll, and allow them to
> > continue to accrue equity compesantion), *OR* the IETF would somehow
> > find the salary for the AD, somehow, then that would avoid decreasin
> > the slate of people willing to stand for selection by Nomcom --- but
> > that transfers the burden to the organization that needs to be able to
> > find the salary for the AD if it turns out to be necessary. It's hard
> > to raise money when it's not clear whether or not it's needed.
> > Especially if it turns out if the answer is trying to hold out a tin
> > cup and beg for donations (sorry, sponsorships).
> >
> > Or what other alternative did you have in mind for finding the $$$ to
> > pay for a full-time AD's salary? I hope you're not proposing that the
> > IETF start charging hundreds or thousands of dollars for
> > fourth-generation xerox copies, ala what was needed to get a hold of a
> > (legal) copy of the ASN.1 spec from ANSI....
> >
> > - Ted
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
