I have real trouble with the notion of raising $10 million for an
experiment that I think is likely a bad idea.
And no, I did not pull that number out of thin air, but I would rather
not explain most of my calculations. In order to be fair to the folks
pushing for this, I use a 60% time estimate rather than the 80% estimate
I think is more reasonable for doing the AD job properly. (Yes, it is
variable among areas and individuals. I really can't imagine that we
would want to try to create different expectations for different areas
formally.)
Also, having helped actually hire individuals for the Internet
community, the notion that the nomcom would be using its very ad-hoc
processes to choose who got paid significant sums of money strikes me as
something that should frighten everyone involved.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/29/18 7:33 PM, 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).
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
> >
