Maybe it's my roots showing, but the idea that people should be working over 40 hours a week in order to be able to be ADs is extremely bad. If that's what you have to do to be an AD, we have a problem. (And yes, I know that that is what you have to do to be an AD, for some people who are and/or have been ADs; what I'm saying is that that's not a good way to run an organization, and I personally do not approve, FWTW. :)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And this begs an interesting (to me :-) question.
When someone says she works at being AD 37.6% of her time, does she mean "37.6% of her paid time" or "37.6% of the time that is available to work on anything"?
That would seem to cut into the "volunteer ethos" a lot.
So, clearly, someone who puts in 45 hours a week as AD is a hero when they are paid for those hours, but when 39 of those hours are voluntary, unpaid time, then they are a super-hero.
And it is important for ADs reporting how much time the role takes up to report the total hours spent (modesty should not come into it!).
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: 30 July 2018 20:21
> To: Warren Kumari
> Cc: IETF Discuss
> Subject: Re: AD Time
>
>
>
> On 30/07/18 18:15, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > I suspect I'm not really articulating this very well...
>
> FWIW, Warren I think I got exactly what you mean and if so,
> I fully agree with you.
>
> Another way to try say it might be: If you muck with the
> volunteer ethos too much, as is being suggested by a few
> people on this thread, you are very very likely to destroy
> that volunteer ethos entirely.
>
> The half-baked ideas I've seen throw out in this thread seem
> to be exemplars in mucking about carelessly, or would be if
> taken seriously. (And in case someone wonders, I don't see
> any value in this thread as a thought-experiment either.)
>
> S.
