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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf