Subject: Re: Requirements for Open Positions

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:53:31 -0400

Andrew,

Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that these
"requirements" are the opinions of the incumbents of what it
takes to do the jobs as they see them.   That is important
input, but I question whether it should be controlling for
either applicants or Nomcom decisions.  In particular, while,
e.g., the introduction to the "IESG Requirements" document seems
to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the role
requires "between 25 and 40 hours per week" and the IETF Chair
one indicates that the job is full-time.  I don't know whether
there is community consensus for this view, but I believe that
potential candidates who (i) clearly understand what is involved
in the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas about how
the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the workload
should be taken very seriously rather than dismissed because
they cannot make the commitment to meet these "requirements".

Just my opinion.
thanks,
   john

--On Thursday, 19 October, 2006 15:54 -0400 Andrew Lange
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG and IAB provide the NomCom with requirements for the
> positions in their groups.
> 
> To help nominators select good candidates, and let the
> community know the sorts of experience and qualifications that
> the NomCom is seeking, the requirements have been posted at
> the URLs below.
> 
> Requirements for IESG Positions:
> 
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/06/iesg-requirements.t
> xt
> 
> Requirements for IETF Chair/GEN AD Position:
> 
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/06/ietf-chair-requirem
> ents.txt
> 
> Requirements for IAB Positions:
> 
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/06/iab-requirements.txt
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:25:21 -0700

On Oct 19, 2006, at 2:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I believe that potential candidates who (i) clearly understand what  
> is involved in the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas  
> about how the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the  
> workload should be taken very seriously rather than dismissed  
> because they cannot make the commitment to meet these "requirements".

I would agree with that. That said, having sat in the seat, I'm not  
sure that folks who haven't done the job have a good way of  
estimating what it requires. Once in the seat, they can try their  
ideas and see how well they work.

But I don't think the nomcom is likely to say "you only said you  
could work half time so we will not select you". What these notes are  
more about is giving the potential nominee an idea what s/he is  
getting him/herself into. Someone who thinks that they can do the job  
on five hours a week by, perhaps, effectively organizing and  
utilizing a panel of expert reviewers can put their name in and say  
"I think I can get the job done". In this note, however, they have  
something the incumbents have reviewed and found consistent with  
their experience. The message is that someone who finds the picture  
daunting probably shouldn't agree to be nominated.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:01:40 -0400

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> Andrew, Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that
    John> these "requirements" are the opinions of the incumbents of
    John> what it takes to do the jobs as they see them.  That is
    John> important input, but I question whether it should be
    John> controlling for either applicants or Nomcom decisions.  In
    John> particular, while, e.g., the introduction to the "IESG
    John> Requirements" document seems to strike about the right
    John> balance, it suggests that the role requires "between 25 and
    John> 40 hours per week" and the IETF Chair one indicates that the
    John> job is full-time.  I don't know whether there is community
    John> consensus for this view, but I believe that potential
    John> candidates who (i) clearly understand what is involved in
    John> the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas about
    John> how the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the
    John> workload should be taken very seriously rather than
    John> dismissed because they cannot make the commitment to meet
    John> these "requirements".

Agreed.

I would be shocked if someone claimed to be able to do the IESG role
at less than 20 hours a week,, but I would certainly carefully listen
to any plausible candidate who claimed they could do the job.  I think
Fred describes a good way to look at this.

P.S.  For some of us, it is possible to do the IESG job and to have
other responsibilities as well.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:11:58 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> takes to do the jobs as they see them.

To be very precise, and speaking only about the IESG
positions since I can't speak for the IAB on this, those
descriptions are the collective opinion of the IESG as
a whole, not the individual opinions of the incumbents on
their own positions.

> That is important
> there is community consensus for this view,

It isn't a view. It's a statement of fact.

> but I believe that

That is, of course, logically correct.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:40:03 -0400

> a whole, not the individual opinions of the incumbents on

Thank you, that is useful information.
 
>> e.g., the introduction to the "IESG Requirements" document
>> seems to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the
>> role requires "between 25 and 40 hours per week" and the IETF
>> Chair one indicates that the job is full-time.  I don't know
>> whether there is community consensus for this view,
> 

The statement of fact is that the incumbents have interpreted
their jobs in a way that causes those jobs to take that much
time.  Part of the job descriptions given, and that presumably
lead to the required level of time commitment, derive from clear
statements of community desires and requirements as laid out in
consensus BCP documents.  Part of it derives from IESG (or
individual AD) inferences and decisions about how to respond to
other types of demands from the IETF community or from outside.
While some of those decisions are obvious --i.e., there don't
seem to be alternates without drastic revisions to those base
documents-- others are, perhaps, not.  

Suppose potential candidates exist in the community who believe
that they have ideas that would significantly rearrange the
workload --within the bounds established by existing,
documented, procedures-- so as to make the community less
dependent on two-year commitments of huge blocks of time from a
small number of individuals and, consequently, see the time
commitment required by the job differently.  I am expressing the
hope that such people would apply for the positions, and
initiate a dialogue with the Nomcom about them, without being
unreasonably deterred by incumbent job descriptions and time
estimates.  I also hope that the Nomcom would take such
candidacies seriously and would evaluate the hypotheses about
different ways to structure the roles (again, within the bounds
identified in consensus documents) in a careful and serious way,
rather than checking off "not willing to commit as much time as
the descriptions claim is necessary".

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:32:14 +0200

John,

>>It isn't a view. It's a statement of fact.

I realised I had missed off a clause.

It's a statement of fact about what the current (and recent ex)
ADs have found necessary.
...

> estimates.  

I have no problem with that at all.

> I also hope that the Nomcom would take such

That would be perfectly appropriate. (I'm not expressing an opinion
about the outcome of such an evaluation.)

    Brian

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:44:18 -0400

> the descriptions claim is necessary".

Well, hopefully the Nomcom would have the discussion with those
potential IESG members around the topic "What if you are wrong and
your ideas don't pan out and it really does take as much time as past
history has suggested?"

I would also argue that ideas about how to significantly rearrange the
workload are things shouldn't be happening as part of the nomcom
process, but part of an open discussion so that all stakeholders have
a chance to comment.  Those ideas should be applicable regardless of
who the candidate might be for a particular position, right?

						- Ted

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:21:49 +0200

Hi Ted,

> who the candidate might be for a particular position, right?
Well, let's be a little nuanced about this.  First, John did state and 
highlight, "within the bounds established by existing documented 
procedures".  But beyond that, there is lot that can be done within 
those bounds.  In particular, how WGs themselves are organized can play 
a role.  Do you have 0, 1, or many WGs on a particular topic?  Take for 
example DHC.  You could have a WG per DHCP option, a WG for DHCPv6, 
etc.  But this would be an inefficient use of resources, and successive 
ADs have seen great wisdom in the organization of the longest running 
WG.  Would we could organize more work along these lines, I wonder if it 
would make life easier for others, and perhaps ADs would like to take a 
swing at this one publicly, but I see nothing wrong with such a question 
being asked during NOMCOM.  They go right to one's ability to manage, 
which it seems to me is a good portion of the job.

Eliot