FWIW, there was the separate suggestion that NOMCOM publish the NUMBER of candidates who agreed to be considered, and this seems helpful without setting off the usual alarms...
When I sat on the nomcom, we tried to get more information about willing candidates by submitting a list padded with non-willing candidates to obscure the true list. If we are going to that length to protect those under consideration, I think giving the number of "competitors" might not be desirable. (What if it's 1? What if it's 2? What if you realize that you lost to so and so in a head-to-head race?)
If I had my naive druthers, having been on a committee with a lot of "fresh blood" - I would rather make the list of candidates known and open (like the IETF) to invite targeted comments. Selections ought to be objective - that's the way we want the technology to be. Given the context of "fresh blood" - this makes people who are diligent able to make better decisions without all of the guess work borne from not having experience (= pre-conceived notions).
In a really open and secure process, "losers" would be given a dump on why they lost. Like a student getting an F - it's fair to tell someone how to improve for the next test. (Another naive opinion of mine.)
I can understand why the list might be private - not willing to reveal who is available, who "lost", etc.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf