Subject: What the TSV ADs say about what TSVAREA said about the TSV AD position at IETF 92

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:32:14 +0200

Hi all,

Spencer and I have been collecting input from the Transport community 
about the Transport Area Director (AKA TSV AD) positions at IETF-92.

This email summarizes in a bullet style list what the TSV ADs say about 
what TSVAREA said about the TSV AD position

Let us know what your thoughts and ideas are!

Format of this text (exported from a working slide set, so do not get 
confused if the text says 'slides' in many places :)

Suggestions from IETF 92 TSVAREA session.
“Q:” slides are unedited suggestions.
“A:” slides are TSV AD thoughts on “Q:” slides.
This material is from the community. It is not from the current ADs 
brainstorming.

Q: Jobsharing
Two TSV folk talked to last year’s Nomcom about splitting one AD 
position and working out the details between them
Neither was able to serve as the only replacement for Spencer
They said Nomcom rejected the idea

A:Jobsharing
We had talked about this before IETF92.
It would be challenging for Nomcom (but maybe easier than finding one AD).
If this morphed into a multi-person Area Director function, that could 
give you a Smallerized IESG.
This would be similar to the RFC Editor morphing from Jon Postel to the 
function we have today.

Q: Splitting the AD role
Details need to be worked (“duh!”). But you need a title for employers 
(something like “Deputy AD”).
Deputy ADs would perform some, but not all, tasks that ADs perform today.
This is not delegation unless there’s an appeal.

A: Splitting the AD role
This may touch a fair amount of BCP text immediately.
This could be consistent with the initial Smallerizing proposal, 
depending on where that goes. If so ...
We need to move fast on the Smallerizing proposal in the next six 
months, if this is going to help TSV.

Q: Add a third AD
Same description as generic AD, but time commitment is 15-25 hours 
instead of 20-40
Open to the possibility that all three ADs might not be peers
Potentially unequal time commitments

A: Add a third AD
We are already reducing the time commitment is 15-25 hours for TSV ADs, 
whether we have two ADs, or three, so that part is happening.
This was the smallest change we could think of.
If we don’t add a third TSV AD, we need to make bigger changes (“go big 
or go home”).

Q: Fix the funding problem directly
Funding problem is the worst for academics and researchers
Can’t get US researchers funded as ADs at all. EU researchers a little 
better but still very hard
Funding from ISOC? Funding from ICANN?
Google concerned that direct funding would cause (apparent or real) 
conflicts of interest

A: Fix the funding problem directly
Biggest change the community proposed.
Not sure how it helps attract researchers and academics.
We’ve heard concerns about “full time standards people” for years. This 
may be more so.
If we do this, it’s not clear why the proposal would be limited to TSV.

Q: Size the area for available ADs
Stop doing academic exercises
Start closing working groups
Reduce the number of documents in process

A: Size the area for available ADs
We are closing working groups now.
We are giving away working groups now.
Not clear how much more we can downsize.
“Core TSV only” is still something like 10 WGs.
Much new IAB Stack Evo work fits in core TSV.

**Summary of TSV AD responses
Jobsharing - would help
Use Deputy ADs - would help
Add a third AD - would help
Fix funding problem - wouldn’t help
Resize TSV area - wouldn’t help

   Spencer and Martin

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:41:59 -0700

> Q: Fix the funding problem directly
...
> Google concerned that direct funding would cause (apparent or real)

That's true for people funded by companies.

A quick check of the current 15 includes:

	3 from Cisco
	2 from Huawei
	1 from ICANN

There are only two from universities, who arguably have no COI because
they don't sell devices or services directly derived from IETF output.

Direct funding by the ISOC would mitigate, rather than amplify, this COI.

---

One additional point: there's no such thing as "apparent" COI; *ALL* COI
is based on the *perception* of the *potential* for inappropriate behavior.

Joe

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:36:21 +0200

Hi Joe

> Direct funding by the ISOC would mitigate, rather than amplify, this COI.

Right. There were thoughts in the past to have a fund for the TSV AD 
position where bigger companies chip in money so that indepedent 
candidates could run for the position though the actual employer would 
not be able to financially sponsor them.

> is based on the *perception* of the *potential* for inappropriate behavior.

True.

   Martin

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:27:50 -0700

PS - I'd like to add:

- the AD shall not participate in governmental politics as a
representative of this area

I'm amazed this isn't already a requirement of all ADs, but recent posts
to the IETF list suggest otherwise (I don't know which ADs were involved).

Joe