Re: AD time

[Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for pulling this together.  Responding here as it’s to the list.  This list misses my initial point.

The split of work and time percentages between ADs needs to be considered by the Nomcom.  

Best regards,

Kathleen 

Sent from my mobile device

On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:32 AM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Eliot

I would like to add the following 

8. We want a healthy balance of people from the different type of companies/orgs to avoid solution bias. 

Padma

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm just trying to summarize what I think I've read in this rather MASSIVE thread:

1. The AD job is Big.
2. It can't be subdivided because there is a loss of context when one doesn't read all the drafts.
3. We can't peel off meeting organization because it is directly tied to the drafts.
4. We don't want to limit work the IETF takes on based on AD time
5. We don't want only people in corporations holding leadership positions
6. We don't want people without skin in the game holding leadership positions
7. We don't want leaders who take the wrong incentive signals, such as # of documents processed

Do I have that about right?  If so, do people believe we are meeting them today?  Also, is [5] markedly in conflict with [6]?

IMHO this isn't fatal to Ted's idea, with a tweek or two.  It seems to me that having a small number of people (1-3?) appointed by the NOMCOM specifically with a healthy stipend in mind would be an interesting experiment.  The challenge in the experiment is identifying which areas be involved.  Seems to me that people would apply as they do today, and the best people would be chosen, and up to the limit, if there is funding available, they'd get it.  If there are more highly qualified people available than there is funding, we let the NOMCOM make a decision to balance all those constraints.  It *is* more work for the NOMCOM, and maybe we should be funding THEM (a joke! really!).

Eliot