Hi John, On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 9:01 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >... > > Three observations (supplementing those from Spencer, Keith, and > others but not disagreeing with them): > > (1) While Nomcoms have rarely taken advantage of it, my > understanding from the beginning of the Nomcom model has been > that Nomcoms are free to recruit, twist arms, etc. This may be > the year for doing that. I would like to know the basis for your claim above. Extrapolating from memories of my experience as a member of six nomcoms (4 as a voting member, one as chair, and one as previous chair) EVERY nomcom has encountered a problem of few (like one or sometimes even zero) candidates for at least one and not uncommonly two or three positions, And EVERY nomcom has recruited, twisted arms, etc., in a usually successful effort to improve this situation. > (2) ... > > (3) From observation of results, Nomcoms are often inclined to > return incumbents who are willing to serve again (and who have > not been absolute disasters). This is understandable: > borrowing a metaphor, not only is the devil one knows better > than the one one does not, but the good person one knows is > clearly more attractive than someone unknown (at least for > performance in that role). For people who believe an incumbent > has been doing an ok (or better) job, that is a disincentive to > putting their names in for that position... especially if doing > so requires rearranging of schedules, getting employer > permission, guaranteeing travel and time support, etc. I have > no idea how to solve that problem, at least without changes the > IESG has been disinclined to consider or let the community > consider (Spencer might even remember an ancient (and long-dead) > attempt at part of the issue in the form of > draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first). I notice your statement about incumbents does not distinguish between incumbents who are serving their first term as an AD and other incumbents. Two years was set as the term for IESG members not because it was thought they should be changed after that length of time but as a compromise between short terms to limit the damage a bad AD could do and longer terms to reduce the burden on the nomcom. It is also a factor that, according to many ADs, it takes 9 months to a year to adapt to the workload of being an AD, learn the ropes , etc. Thus a typical first time AD is, over their 2 year term, maybe something like 50 to 60% effective. There are no specific rules but I have always felt, and I believe that many nomcom members have felt, that someone who has done a reasonably good job during their first term as an AD should get a 2nd term, but after that they should have no special consideration and, in fact, if some AD has served something like 3 or more terms, it may definitely be time for a change and this should be considered a factor against them. An incumbent versus new AD decision is also, of course, strongly affected by community feedback. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > best, > john
