Re: [Gendispatch] How I spend my time as an AD

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

… and here is last week's info.

Last week was ICANN 78 in Hamburg, .de, and so the majority of my time was
spent on ICANN stuff…


#Exported data from October 22, 2023 to October 28, 2023
#Exported on October 30, 2023
#Duration formatted as H:mm (e.g. 0:26)
#Times rounded to nearest minute
ICANN - Meetings 34:20:00
ICANN - SSAC 3:36:00
ICANN - Misc 3:23:00
IETF - Document Progression 3:12:00
IETF - Email 23:05:00
IETF - Document Review 2:00:00
IETF - WG management 3:23:00

Total time 72:59:00
IETF Time 25:05:00
% IETF Time 34%


On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:47 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm getting somewhat tired of tracking this, and am not sure if people are
> actually using / reviewing the data.
>
> Last week I worked 67h 20m. Of that 35h 22min (or 52.5%) was IETF time.
>
> #Exported data from October 8, 2023 to October 14, 2023
> #Exported on October 16, 2023
> #Duration formatted as H:mm (e.g. 0:26)
> #Times rounded to nearest minute
> #Activity,Group,Duration,Percentage
> Email - Misc 1:24:00 2%
> Document Progression IETF 3:59:00 7%
> Email IETF 18:42:00 33%
> Meetings IETF 3:13:00 6%
> NOC IETF 2:57:00 5%
> Technology Deep Dives IETF 0:59:00 2%
> Misc - Administrivia 3:41:00 6%
> Misc - Misc 0:27:00 1%
>
>
> W
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 12:23 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> … and, as per usual, Roman's thoroughness and detail makes me look like a
>> slacker :-).
>>
>> Below is my time from last week (Oct 1 - Oct 7th).
>> Last week was unusual, as I participated in the ICANN Name Collisions
>> Analysis Project (NCAP) workshop in Washington D.C.  Because of this I
>> spent much more time on ICANN stuff than usual, and also missed the IESG
>> Telechat. Some time was also "wasted" in travels, side meetings, etc.
>>
>> #Exported data from October 1, 2023 to October 7, 2023
>>
>> Email / Research- Corp: 2:00:00
>> Misc - Email: 10:18:00
>> ICANN - Name Collisions:  11:57:00
>> ICANN - SSAC:  1:47:00
>> IETF - Document Progression:  0:25:00
>> IETF - Document Review: 3:50:00
>> IETF - Email:  9:35:00
>> IETF - IESG Discussions: 2:30:00
>> IETF - Misc:  0:10:00
>> IETF - NOC:  1:42:00
>> Misc - Administrivia 0:11:00
>> Misc - Misc 4:16:00
>>
>> Total working hours: 48:41:00
>> IETF time: 28:30:00
>> % IETF: 58.54%
>>
>> Once again, because of the nature of email, I'm counting both
>> "Misc-Email" and "IETF-Email" as IETF time (looking at my mail stats, the
>> huge majority is from @ietf.org, or directly related to IETF, so I feel
>> justified in doing so).
>>
>> W
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 9:09 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My narrative version of being AD, https://github.com/rdanyliw/
>>> ietf-notes/blob/main/SEC-AD-role-perspective.md, recently sent to SAAG (
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/7VtuR41OM08dlZcy57CYj7pnlvg/)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* iesg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Warren Kumari
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:01 AM
>>> *To:* Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc:* [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:* Re: How I spend my time as an AD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> … and here is some additional data to try and give a flavor of what I'm
>>> spending my IETF time on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this is only my IETF time, plus "Email - Misc" (because much
>>> of this is intermixed with IETF stuff).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #Exported data from September 24, 2023 to September 30, 2023
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #Duration formatted as Text (e.g. 0h 26m)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #Times rounded to nearest minute
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #Activity,Duration,Percentage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email - Misc,6h 49m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF: Document Progression,2h 05m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF: Email ,13h 42m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF: Meetings,3h 21m,9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF: Misc,0h 33m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF: NOC,2h 46m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like I spent ~29h 16m on IETF stuff, and the majority (20h 30m)
>>> was spent on email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was out of ~50h worked total, so IETF related stuff took ~76% of my
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Much of this is squishy time — for example, I was doing IETF: Email
>>> while participating in an ICANN Workshop, so I was only partially present
>>> in either….
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> W
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:57 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:01 PM, Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people in the community are interested in how ADs spend their time.
>>> Here is a data point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> … and here is some data from me: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
>>> 15vSsL_aD2sMb_SFXmvlXwf781xZ4SfLqT-Mf5YavKqI/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: I only did this for 2 days, shortly after a meeting - this means
>>> that it isn't hugely representative of an "average" week, but it hopefully
>>> at least give a flavor. One thing that I discovered while collecting this
>>> data is just how much overhead it involved (which is why it is only 2 days
>>> :-)). I'm somewhat ADHD, and the context switching of "Do something, record
>>> something, do something, record something" was crushing. It was also very
>>> unclear how I would count almost all of the items.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As an example, after aggressive filtering I get ~250 emails per day -
>>> these are spread across email lists which I'm on because I'm an AD, email
>>> lists which I'd read anyway, ICANN mail, corporate mail, etc. If I read an
>>> email about a draft in DNSOP, is that AD time? Or is general IETF time? I'd
>>> probably read it even if I wasn't DNSOP AD, but I'd also likely pay less
>>> attention to some of the less interesting replies…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yesterday I mentioned an OpsAWG draft on the NANOG list - https://
>>> mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2023-September/223301.html . Do I
>>> count that as AD / IESG time? I'll end up progressing the document, but I
>>> also happen to believe that this draft is really useful, and I would have
>>> reported on it either way, so perhaps it's just general IETF time?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, I am fairly disappointed (and somewhat hurt) that
>>> instead of just *asking* how I spend my time, a BoF was proposed. To me at
>>> least, this felt like "Not only are you doing this wrong, but it is so
>>> wrong that your input is not useful or needed. We'll design a timecard for
>>> you to fill in, and make sure your TPS report is on my desk by Friday."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> W
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not including the time I spend as a normal IETF participant:
>>> writing drafts, participating in WGs I would attend anyway, and attending
>>> IETF plenary meetings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These percentages are a rough fraction of a 40-hour workweek, averaged
>>> over the year. I did a time card for my own information three years ago,
>>> long since lost, but this is an estimate based on a little reflection on
>>> the tasks I perform.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8% - Meetings: Telechats, a weekly sync with my co-AD, occasional
>>> one-offs for IEEE syncs, BOF reviews, etc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2% - WG management - finding chairs, occasional 1-on-1s, chartering,
>>> errata, BoFs, monitoring mailing lists, etc. Personally, I tend not to wade
>>> into WG document threads very much, to keep my perspective clear for the AD
>>> review. Others may differ. There was a period I spent about 5% of my time
>>> clearing the errata backlog, but that is long past.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In transport, we do not get many BoFs. I have also been fortunate in
>>> having great WG chairs that can handle most problems, so thank you to them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3% - AD [document] Evaluation -- With only 5 WGs, I do not have many of
>>> these. I take these really seriously and a review usually takes the better
>>> part of a day, sometimes more. Other ADs almost certainly spend more time
>>> because they have many more documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3% - Standards process management: actively participating in policy work
>>> -- IESG statements and such -- is essentially optional. I have gotten
>>> interested in certain initiatives. It is certainly possible to spend more
>>> or less time on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2% - Retreats. These meetings essentially take a full week, but are
>>> happening only once per year. You could put this in the "standards process
>>> management" bin if you like.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10% - IESG review - Until about a year ago, this consumed substantially
>>> more time for me, as much as 40-50%. For multiple reasons, I've trimmed
>>> this down to focus on documents with transport implications (which is not
>>> many of them). In the context of any particular review, I've reduced my
>>> focus to major problems and any transport issues. For what it's worth, I
>>> don't think this scaling back has meaningfully reduced my impact on the
>>> IETF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For most ADs, a much larger percentage of ballots have issues pertaining
>>> to their area of expertise. If I applied the same criteria to being SEC AD,
>>> I would probably be spending *at least* 40% of my time on balloting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In summary, I'm spending about 25%-30% of my workweek on AD-specific
>>> stuff. When I started, it was over 50%. mostly because I was much more
>>> thorough on IESG ballots. An additional chunk of time is spent on being an
>>> IETF participant. Although I participate in more policy work than the bare
>>> minimum, I would say that this level of commitment is pretty close to a
>>> lower bound for competent* execution of the duties because:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Transport is small: few WGs, not that many documents, largely
>>> irrelevant to most IESG ballots
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - I am experienced: I've formed an opinion about what matters and have
>>> stopped doing stuff that I don't think matters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ********
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some closing thoughts:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No one asked me, but I don't think eliminating AD tasks that take <5% of
>>> the week is going to make a difference in recruiting: it's still a matter
>>> of asking your manager to be removed from some dayjob tasks. The real money
>>> is in (1) eliminating lots of working groups; (2) having way more ADs;
>>> and/or (3) fundamentally changing the nature of IESG balloting. All of
>>> these have significant drawbacks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will also note that we historically have plenty of AD candidates for
>>> some areas (SEC and RTG) and almost none in others (TSV). It is apparent to
>>> me that this is not just about workload and there are other factors at
>>> play, and the community would benefit from exploring these before taking a
>>> sledgehammer to the generic AD job description.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WG management and AD Evaluation are the most important things I do and
>>> should not be abridged.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there's one place I regret not spending more time, it's adoption
>>> calls in my WGs. There are several instances where I have AD evaluated a
>>> document that isn't highly objectionable, but that I don't think is a
>>> particularly useful addition to the RFC series.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin Duke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Transport AD 2020-2024
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * I have received private feedback that my contribution has been
>>> reasonably competent, but others are free to disagree,
>>>
>>>