Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CFB11E839E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxc5RSMJI6kw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E32911E8361 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VYJep-0000p7-IH; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:52:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:52:42 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG
Message-ID: <24CF14369F77E6876FAEDA6E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8F9355A-5499-4FDE-A668-E919504E900F@checkpoint.com>
References: <CADnDZ88vdtnSVRuA3-TEnCELYSMfu+zA2ya+_Gr80809L7hK9w@mail.gmail.com> <293D8084-3532-4632-AD20-014C66A4E9FE@checkpoint.com> <5263DF08.4090304@pi.nu> <892B13B7BF164B38A8DB3793@[192.168.1.128]> <52643145.8010504@gmail.com> <52643500.3010406@joelhalpern.com> <A8F9355A-5499-4FDE-A668-E919504E900F@checkpoint.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:53:31 -0000

--On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:51 +0000 Yoav Nir
<ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

> The question, though, is how much would that reduce the load
> on the IESG. If all we've done is get it down from 35
> hours/week to 28 hours/week, I'm not sure it's worth it,
> because you still can't hold another full-time job.

Yoav,

As others have pointed out, we don't have any large-scale
statistics about why people say "no".  But, speaking quite
anecdotally from situations I've been involved in, there is a
huge difference between allowing someone to cut productive
day-job work hours down to four or even 2 1/2 or three days a
week and having to give them up entirely for two years.  

In many situations, the choice isn't between "full time
availability for non-IETF work" and "IETF is the full time job".
It is whether someone has enough cycles left over after IETF
commitments to be substantially useful in the "day job"
environment.  

In addition and for better or worse, I don't think the IESG (or
IAB) are ever likely to become the sort of role that is suited
to someone who puts in 40 hours a week (or 35 in some countries)
and then goes home and forgets about the job or role.  In
practice, 28 hours / week might be considerably less than
half-time. 

   best,
    john