Subject: Re: AD Time

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:26:07 +0100

Maybe documents would be better reviewed and few mistakes found by the 
IESG if, for every review undertaken a discount was applied to the 
registration fee, and if for every issue not resolved without AD 
intervention the registration fee was increased.:-)

- Stewart

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 08:28:12 -0700

> intervention the registration fee was increased.:-)

a lot of folk seem to be assuming financial rewards and penalties are
principal factors.  are there data to suppor this assumption?

randy

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:41:52 +0200

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 04:26:07PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> Maybe documents would be better reviewed and few mistakes found by the IESG
> if, for every review undertaken a discount was applied to the registration
> fee, and if for every issue not resolved without AD intervention the
> registration fee was increased.:-)

Is it permitted to propose incentive schemes that do not involve
coions/cryptocurrencies. That sounds like proposing enhancements to IPv4.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:13:21 +0100

> principal factors.  are there data to suppor this assumption?

Well I am thinking of the general population rather than the ADs here, 
and I am not
the only one that thinks that meeting fees are high.

- Stewart

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:21:21 -0700

> and I am not the only one that thinks that meeting fees are high.

i think the price of eggs is high.  this does not mean that financial
considerations are my primary motivation.

aside: i often here "they're charging way too much for X" i usually
suggest that they try to do X or to compete with it; and they soon find
out why X costs so much.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:42:17 -0800

> principal factors.  are there data to suppor this assumption?

Anecdotally, on the occasions when I've had to decline
a nomination, when I was consulting the issue was the
money.  When I've been working for someone else the issue
has been time.  I expect there may be other issues as
well, but it's not at all clear to me that the singular
problem that's limiting the candidate pool is money.  I
think the proposal to pay ADs (ack, ptooey) is premised
on the time == money equality.

Melinda

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 15:50:34 -0400

Hm, from my side at least it's premised on the money=money identity.  Maybe
somebody else was proposing that time=money, but I think I've been pretty
clear several times in saying that my intention for this suggestion is that
it make it possible for people to be ADs who can't otherwise afford to.
 The sense in which time comes into this is that I can't see how an AD can
do a good job in <50% of an FTE.