Or look back to a previous Security AD appointment when the incumbent
became unavailable because he was appointed IETF Chair.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen <
kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_at_)emc(_dot_)com> wrote:
It is important for multiple people to run even when there is an incumbent
for a fair process. When Stephen Farrell ran for Sec AD again last year,
he encouraged me to accept the nomination and run against him so that there
was a good candidate to make the process a bit more fair. If either
Stephen of Sean won the lottery, the Noncom would at least have gone
through the interview and review process with other candidates in advance.
The candidate would have worked through the possibility of what this meant
with their job and that it was possible for them to take on this role (not
insignificant for many of us). For me, I thought Stephen was doing a fine
job and am glad he was put back on the IESG, but it is good for the Noncom
to have options and backup plans. I received approval from my company, but
let my management know that it was unlikely that I would be selected since
incumbents usually return.
Maybe folks should consider running against an incumbent. You learn the
process and it forces you to figure out if you are interested in the role
and could allocate that time to the IETF. I gave a positive review of
Stephen when running against him.
Thanks,
Kathleen
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 6:36 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Nomcom(_at_)ietfa(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com;
Chair(_at_)ietfa(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: NOMCOM - Critical shortage of nominees for multiple areas
Hi Allison,
in your model you don't count those people who have been rejecting to a
nomination, just because they believe the current AD did a very good job
and he/she should be reelected.
So the situation is not that bad, if there is only the current AD on the
nominee list.
Cheers,
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of ext NomCom
Chair
2013
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:25 PM
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc: IETF Discuss
Subject: NOMCOM - Critical shortage of nominees for multiple areas
[Catchier Subject line - apologies to those offended by a duplicate]
A critically low number of people have accepted nominations for some
of the IESG open positions. There is only one nominee per slot in
APP, OPS and TSV, only two in INT and RAI. Many folks have declined
nominations.
While the Nomcom appreciates that support for two years of intense
service is hard to assure, and while we are aware that there is much
support for the incumbents who are standing, the IETF should
continually be considering which new talent is available for our
leadership, and the Nomcom process needs for there to be some review and
deliberation.
Therefore, we urgently request that more nominees come forward.
DEADLINES
Nominations - October 18
Questionnaires from nominees - October 25
Not coincidentally, this is a good time to think over and send your
comments about the current statements of desired expertise of
positions - this is part of the Nomcom's annual review process as well.
Send them to nomcom13(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.
Definitive location [*] of the current statements on desired expertise:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/expertise/
Instructions and details on nomination [**]:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/60602/
Thanks, everyone,
Allison for the Nomcom
[*] This year the Nomcom tools were recoded, and also transitioned
into the datatracker. Apologies for a number of places where we
didn't catch reference errors.
[**] Yes, alas, the previous call for nominations used "OAM" instead
of "OPS," but we have* corrected this (chair's pilot) error where it
occurred in the Nomcom pages.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/