Can I just top-post to throw into the mix that one of the candidate questionnaire questions is (quite reasonably) to you have support from your employer (financial and time) to fill this role. Answering this question, of course, means going to your employer and getting that support (or for independents finding a sponsor). This represents a certain investment in of reputation, may be a lot of work, and can be treated differently by employers when a candidate is not selected. None of that is to question where we are with the processes, but it should help explain why people might be more reluctant to put their names forward if they think they are not in with a reasonable chance. I think debate has gone back and forwards over the years about the early announcement of candidates who have been nominated and/or who have accepted nominations. One argument has been that seeing a small set of nominees might prompt someone to stand, or that seeing the potential appointees might incentivise others to stand. Conversely, the argument can be made that seeing the name of someone you think is half-way reasonable is good enough reason to not stand. Furthermore, a person might think they stand no chance against another candidate and so be disinclined to put their name forward, which might suggest not announcing any names until nominations close. You pay your money and you take your choice. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: 24 January 2021 23:09 To: STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx>; 'Bron Gondwana' <brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: 'ietf@xxxxxxxx' <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections --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
