--On Sunday, January 24, 2021 20:19 +0000 "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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, You did indeed and I had forgotten, for which I apologize. But it seems to me there is a big difference between "put your name in, you probably won't get the position, but you will learn things that might help the next time" and "apply for this on the assumption that you might get it". I know that, this time, I tried to convince one person I considered qualified to run who basically told me that the experience when they applied for a position in a different year had been sufficiently time-consuming and stressful that they were not likely to ever apply for such a position again. It was not the first time I've been told very similar things. There is probably nothing that can be done to prevent that kind of reaction, but it may be a tradeoff to be thought about for the future. Any thoughts on whether it would be helpful to start collecting comments on candidates, new appointees, and/or continuing incumbents now with the understanding that no one would look at them before the 2021-2022 Nomcom was seated? best, john
