On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Warren, why would you feel an implicit obligation to get documents out fast rather than good? That doesn't make sense to me. The whole point of having ADs is that they get documents out good, not that they get documents out fast. If we valued getting documents out fast over getting them out good, we would have no ADs. The recent comments on the session signaling doc are a great example of this: several very smart people took a significant chunk of time to read these documents carefully, and had lots of thoughtful comments. The document had already been through several layers of review. What we got from the IESG on this document is exactly what I want out of the IESG: a view from someone smart and careful who otherwise wouldn't have read the document, and who has some ability to make my life less smooth if I try to take the easy way out and not make the requested changes. That's not the only aspect of the AD job, but in my mind it's one of the most important aspects of it. Thank you, we try. It's always nice when people appreciate our feedback. > So the idea that a paid AD would suddenly abdicate that responsibility is the exact opposite of what I'd personally want, and I don't understand why that seems like a natural conclusion to you. Not saying you're wrong—just not following your logic. And it's the opposite of what I would want as well -- but I suspect that I would feel a need to do what is best for the "organization", which is not the same thing as the "community" - I could see the organization wanting metrics to evaluate employees, which I suspect will lead to measuring number of documents progressed (good), amount of time you held up documents with discusses (bad), number of nits pointed out (good), WGs chartered (good), etc. Also, I currently feel that I have the freedom to speak out when I think that the organization is doing something dumb / not in the interest of the community - if I'm paid to serve, I'd feel a sense of loyalty to the IETF, not the community. I suspect I'm not really articulating this very well... > > As for "Google wouldn't let me do the job," do you think that's really true? I'm not sure, but I suspect it is possible. If I went to Google and told them that I'd like to spend a significant amount of my time working for Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) helping run a.root-servers.net they would presumably wonder why Verisign doesn't just hire someone. Google kindly lets me spend some of my time helping USC ISI run b.root-servers.net (and before that, helping ISC run f); some of this is because of the type of organizations these are. I also use some of my personal time to help run various community (and similar) networks specifically because they are community / volunteer type roles - if they hired people to do the same work I'd be much less inclined to spend my time doing this. I'll happily spend hours helping sort wood at my local makerspace, but wouldn't do the same thing for Home Depot. Somewhat related to this is a *fascinating* NPR podcast - https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/02/187373801/episode-386-the-cost-of-free-doughnuts - well worth a listen. > Is Google really that dumb? .... and now you are trolling / that is a loaded question (see, if I worked for the IETF I would implicitly be working for you, and wouldn't feel comfortable saying that :-) ) Google isn't dumb, but they *do* pay me well[0] - if the IETF was able and willing to hire for the AD role, why wouldn't Google prefer that they do that, and instead put me to work doing something more directly related? Having organizations each contribute their employees' time as volunteers creates a feeling that the organizations are all contributing to the good of the Internet. If the IETF were hiring people for this role, I think that feeling would change and it seems likely that employers would rather spend their employees' time elsewhere, either internally or for organizations who cannot hire their own. These are my views, they may be completely wrong... W [0]: Hmmm... not sure who's point I'm making here :-) W > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:35 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> 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). >> >> Something else to keep in mind is that having the *option* for paid >> ADs changes the tone of the role, and may make some people unable (or >> unwilling) to serve. >> >> My management is willing to let me serve as an AD because is is a >> volunteer position (and because I made it clear that I really wanted >> to serve) - if there was the option for the IETF to "hire" people for >> the role, it is entirely possible that they would not have let me do >> so ("Eh, we pay Warren lots of money - if the IETF can hire their own >> people let them do that, and we'll put Warren to work on "real work" >> instead"). Also, if I were being paid by the IETF / ISOC / Endowment / >> Cake Bake Fund I would (personally) feel different about the role -- >> currently I serve because I really like the IETF and want to feel like >> I'm giving back. If I were being paid (or if others were being paid) I >> would feel very differently about the organization and it would go >> from a labor of love to a job. In addition, instead of balloting what >> I believe, I would feel an implicit obligation to get documents out >> the door fast (measurable) versus as good as they can be >> (unmeasurable). >> >> Just some thoughts, >> W >> >> > >> > 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 >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >> idea in the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >> of pants. >> ---maf > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
