On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 07:27:29PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > In my opinion, obviously, the breadth is important, but I don't get the > impression that there is resounding agreement on this. > > Just bear in mind that you can ask for whatever you want from reviewers, > but you get what they give you. Working 40 hours a week and training members of a directorate to provide the executive summaries you mentioned might be better spent AD time than trying to work 60 hours a week reviewing every document yourself as an AD. > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > Ted > > > > I did not mean those options as cure all but as steps to help. Fully agree > > that this will reduce the breadth of view just as areas did. > > > > To make any kind of progress something will need to give though... > > > > Many suggestions has already floated on the list... > > Is it better to keep the breadth or not? > > How can we keep breadth and lighten load? > > Is delegation an option? > > > > We can poll ADs (current and ex) to give 1-3 suggestions that would be > > helpful for them? > > > > We can then look at how the process can be enhanced or not for a trial > > period and see if it actually helps at all. > > > > My 2 cts > > Padma > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 30, 2018, at 13:02, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Padma, all of these solutions reduce the breadth of view of each AD, which > > in turn limits the opportunity for there to be someone in whose head a lot > > of siloed threads of work are known. This is why I am arguing that this > > isn't the right approach to the problem. When I was AD (and I realize > > that not everybody considered this a feature) I really felt like if I just > > relied on directorate reviews without reading the documents myself, I > > wasn't going to have that overview, and that cross-pollination of ideas > > would suffer as a result. > > > > 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; just with less detail. I think this would be great, > > 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
