A Working Group chair role also have very tangible results to employers. They see the work we help shepherd and
it feels their corporate hearts with warmth. I also like chairing working groups - the interactions are much more personable
and enjoyable. I like to think I am OK at it. But I also like working and I can move in and out.
An AD job looks and feels like middle management. I feel I would do a horrible job at it.
I've always been lucky to have great ADs but I feel my role is to make their jobs easier however possible.
Tim
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:17 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/4/19 2:54 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I wonder what people think would break if we moved to 5 AD's per area, and they could divide the WG's and IESG concalls amongst themselves?
I suspect it would mean that there'd be more ADs looking for nits to
pick in order to delay documents.
Note: I DO NOT think that ADs see their purpose in picking nits or
delaying documents. But I do think there's a tendency for people in
any position to, perhaps subconsciously, try to "prove their worth", and
I suspect that having a lot more ADs would create perverse incentives.
ADs do tend to be overloaded. Sometimes, IMO, it's because there is a
lack of political will (and/or community support) to push back against
new WGs that lack the energy or the clue to be doing what they propose
to do. Sometimes, IMO, it's because IETF has a longstanding Bad Habit
of trying to mask tussles by spinning up lots of narrowly focused WGs
with non-overlapping scope.
But mostly, IMO, ADs are overloaded because we're trying to use
volunteers to do what should be paid positions with limited terms.
Keith
