> 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.
When I was first asked to stand for Security AD, I was told that I should consider this a practice run for future because it was almost definite that the current incumbent was going to be re-selected. I don't know if that is, or was, still commonplace. Perhaps it should be. It has to be a negative impact on the nominee pool, however. Because it means that if you want to be an AD, you have to convince your employer that it will be a couple of years of nearly-full-time commitment, but not immediately. That means convincing them at least twice.
The public information about candidates should include all previous nomcom-selected positions they've had. It should be fairly simple to link the nominees to their "dt.ietf/org/person/Lars%20Eggert" page, for example.
More importantly, I notice many of these same suggestions being made annually. The only forum we have for preserving these things is the previous Chair's recommendations, which doesn't seem good enough.
