--On Monday, October 4, 2021 00:37 -0400 Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Don, if that is the case, I apologize for misreading some things I've observed including being told by assorted Nomcom people that they had to wait for the community. I've also seen a number of times when there has been a perceived shortage of nominees for a particular position and notes put out by the Nomcom have indicated that people should volunteer and step forward because otherwise there wound be insufficient candidates without implying direct outreach to individuals. I also remember the IAB being told on at least one occasion that a particular candidate was chosen for a particular position because no one else had volunteered for that position. That strongly implied to me that the Nomcom had not been able to think of other alternates and tried hard enough to persuade them but perhaps that was a misunderstanding as well. >> (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. Of course, that is rather close to what Spencer and I wrote in that long-ago draft, including the reasoning about a second term versus additional ones. Part of our thinking was that, if Nomcoms are behaving the way you suggest (and that we favored) then making a big deal about getting additional candidates for a slot that will almost certainly be returned to the incumbent (because they are completing their first term and have done a competent job) may actually discourage candidacies for other positions because, unless people clearly understand the distinction between first-term and later incumbents -- a distinction those public calls rarely make-- the impression is that there is no point being a candidate against an incumbent unless one is prepared to argue that incumbent has done a bad job. > An incumbent versus new AD > decision is also, of course, strongly affected by community > feedback. One would hope so. best, john
