> I do worry about another issue, one that Rich did not mention. > I remember Barbara posting a note strongly encouraging people to > put their names in even if there were incumbents willing to > serve an additional term. Because putting one's name in > requires considerable effort, if the impression in the community > is that incumbents will almost always be returned, it is going > to be harder and harder to find anyone to volunteer for their > slots (I note that one incumbent this time ran unopposed). But > that concern isn't new either; Spencer and I addressed it and a > possible solution in the second I-D mentioned above. I'm not commenting on the broader debate. But I did want to point out that I specifically noted that people interested in ultimately being appointed to a position might consider running against popular incumbents in order to get experience with the process. I know that 2 of the 3 newly appointed ADs had previously (unsuccessfully) run for AD positions, and I'm not sure of the 3rd. It's not true of everyone -- but there is often a tendency for people to exude nervousness and lack of confidence the first time through a process like this. Having spent the time myself to go through the nominee process unsuccessfully 2 years ago, I can say I found that experience very educational and feel the effort was well worth it. Barbara
