While I hate commenting on pure process issues there's one aspect of this that I don't think I've seen mentioned. (Apologies if this is a repeat.) I've been nominated a number of times and have agreed to go forward, but when filling in the form have said something like: "If you're willing to pick the incumbent, I think that'd be better than going with me." The current proposal doesn't allow for that aspect to be public, which, for me at least, would be a disincentive to allowing my name go forward, in the case where I think the incumbent is actually likely to do a better job. Of course, I won't necessarily know whether the incumbent is re-upping when asked so it makes it harder to know whether to accept a nomination or not. (And indeed the incumbent might not know at that point if their employer is still willing to fund IESG membership, so I can't always just ask 'em.) I think that could be handled by some wording that describes the nominee list and that could be included in the draft. Something like: "This is the list of those nominated (or self-nominated) for IESG positions. The nominees have said that they're willing to serve if selected, but there is no implication that they consider the incumbent unsuited for re-appointment." I don't mind if that text is just in the RFC or is actually posted with the list of names. While I guess this aspect could also be handled by nominee statements, I think that'd be too close to electioneering so prefer the above. (Unless we only allow self-deprecating nominee statements which could be fun:-) Other than that, publishing the list is fine by me. S. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf