+1
As an AD, what would be the top questions you would like to see addressed in
such an executive summary that are not already part of the shepherd review Q&A
template ?
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 04:02:18PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I would not say that this is an impossible problem to solve, but what
> you've described will not solve it. In order to solve it, we'd need for
> the directorate reviews to concisely summarize what each document does,
> with enough detail that the AD who's the recipient of the review has
> roughly the same mental picture they would have had if they'd read the
> document in detail;
>
> but unfortunately this relies on the directorate reviews being of generally
> _much_ higher quality than they are now. And I say this having been the
> recipient of some very good directorate reviews recently: these reviews
> would not have served the purpose I'm describing.
>
> So if the right answer to this is to make AD a 10% position, we have to
> figure out how to *significantly* increase the quality of even already-good
> directorate reviews. I'm not saying that's impossible, but we'd have to
> figure out how it can be possible.
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> To be clear, I'm suggesting that the IETF pay a stipend so that the AD
> >> can pay some or all of their living expenses. I propose that this would
> >> be set at some reasonable but not silicon-valley level, so if you work in
> >> Silicon Valley you probably want to get your employer to pay you to do it.
> >> I would think that the right number would be something 33% or 50% of a
> >> reasonable silicon valley salary???around USD $100k. This would be too low
> >> for someone living in Silicon Valley to do as a full-time job, unless they
> >> live with roommates or take on additional consulting work, for which clear
> >> disclosure guidelines would have to exist. The IETF would also pay travel
> >> expenses to meetings and retreats. And by "the IETF" I am hand-waving a
> >> bit, since obviously the IETF doesn't have the budget to do this.
> >>
> >
> >> I don't see any point in the IETF paying just travel expenses: either you
> >> have a sponsor or you don't. I think it's really quite unreasonable for
> >> the IETF to expect someone to be an AD for free???it's more work than makes
> >> sense for anybody who isn't independently wealthy to do as a volunteer.
> >>
> >>
> > <Padma2>
> >
> > To Warren's point, once we open this pandora box, a lot of companies may
> > reduce or even eliminate their sponsorship.
> > Also, we need to be careful that a new set of biases are not introduced.
> >
> > The problem seems to be the amount of time ADs spend, there are a number
> > of ways to solve this
> > 1. Reduce number of docs
> > 2. Increase number of ADs
> > 3. Create a supporting structure to reduce workload by delegating
> >
> > <Padma2>
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <
> >> padma.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> From the numerous discussions here, "paid by the IETF" seems to be
> >>> interpreted differently.
> >>>
> >>> 1. If "paid by the IETF" means compensation as in salary then I foresee
> >>> a number of difficulties in implementing it
> >>> The salary disparity according to regions/countries for one is tricky.
> >>> Who will decide who much depending on location?
> >>> Along with the salary comes the issues of benefits ( in some countries
> >>> there are health coverage to be integrated for example and others not ....)
> >>> There is also the different labor laws for each different country:
> >>> employer paid benefits, retirement, taxes....
> >>> Will IETF hold this payroll structure for potentially 1 employee per
> >>> region/country for only 2 years?
> >>>
> >>> 2. If "paid by the IETF" means reimbursement of travel expenses then
> >>> this may be more doable IMHO.
> >>>
> >>> Circling back to the issue of diversity of candidates, then I do not see
> >>> how 2 will increase diversity. It may still favor for example those who
> >>> just do not want to incur costs but have other sources of income.
> >>>
> >>> "Diversity" is also open for interpretation ... Gender/age/??
> >>> In this context, IMHO, it should include having a balance between
> >>> "types" of companies/org (operators, edge, network vendors, academia,
> >>> consulting ... ) not just only "names" of companies.
> >>>
> >>> my 2 cts
> >>> Padma
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I guess it sounds like you're proposing a much larger change than I'm
> >>>> proposing. Right now, you serve the community and Google pays you to
> >>>> serve the community. I'm suggesting that an AD could be paid by the IETF
> >>>> to serve the community. I'm not suggesting that an AD would be paid by
> >>>> the IETF to serve the IETF. Actually, I don't even know what it means to
> >>>> serve the IETF as a separate thing from the community. The IETF is a
> >>>> weird organization. But your job description would be to serve the
> >>>> community, not to serve the organization. We already pay people to serve
> >>>> the organization. Who do you think would be doing all of those metrics
> >>>> you speak of? You? Why would you be doing that? That wouldn't be
> >>>> serving the community. Would the IETF chair be tracking those stats?
> >>>>
> >>>> Organizational leaders are not tracked on the basis of how many widgets
> >>>> they produce. They are judged on the basis of whether they help the
> >>>> organization to succeed or fail. This can be a problem when "succeed" and
> >>>> "fail" are defined badly, as is the case with companies that think their
> >>>> job is to serve the immediate needs of the stockholders, but we aren't
> >>>> talking about that here, and I think we all understand these problems
> >>>> pretty well. So it surprises me how many different ways various people
> >>>> who have joined in in this conversation believe it would be done wrong,
> >>>> when if it is done at all, it would be we who are having this conversation
> >>>> who decide what "done right" and "done wrong" look like.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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/epis
> >>>>> ode-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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
