At 12:09 PM 9/15/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:29:53AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > If a candidate wishes to encourage openness and encourage a broader > > base of input to Nomcom, they can and should disclose their > > candidacy. Nomcom will benefit from having better information, for > > the candidates who choose to publicly disclose their candidacy, > > because more people will know that comments on a particular > > candidate are needed. > >I had exactly the opposite reaction to Leslie Daigle's remark. If >people start declaring, then I expect that over time, people who >declare will be more likely to be selected than people who don't. >This is because the Nomcom will get more feedback about the >"declareds" than about the "undeclareds". I imagine that Nomcom >members will naturally tend to prefer those candidates about whom they >have the most information. That said, and I don't believe there is a no con answer, I fear the campaigning that might ensue. It might gather enough steam that it does affect an outcome. This is a real concern to many, including me. >So the practice of declaring by even a significant minority will >naturally tend to mean that all aspirants have to declare, or give up >their aspirations. > >I don't know whether this would be a good or bad thing, but I don't >think we should dismiss the observation that changing the rules, even >informally, changes the rules for everyone. > >A > >-- >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >+1 503 667 4564 x104 >http://www.commandprompt.com/ >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf