Re: [IETF] Re: NOMCOM - Critical shortage of nominees for multiple areas

Going back to something said earlier. While I understand that it may
be good for the nomcom/ietf to develop a list of alternate candidates
even if the incumbent is strong, just for backup, etc., there is a
flip side as well.

Applying takes time. The survey isn't exactly short, and going through
the motions to get internal support can also take time. And for
someone who has applied and is waiting the results, they may find
themselves in an awkward position w.r.t. planning future work
activities (will they have time to take on new activities or will the
nomcom select them?).

All this uses resources that arguably could be spent more
productively, e.g., doing WG work.

I think it's fine to say no to the nomcom and say something like
"incumbent is doing a great job and nomcom should not waste folks'
time beating the bushes to build up a list when there is no compelling
reason not to just quickly reup the incumbent.

If the nomcom wants to build up a list of future potential nominees,
we might want to think about how to do that in ways other than
nominating them for the *current* cycle. E.g., approaching them about
applying next year, and (gasp!) maybe even mentoring them a bit...

Thomas

<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.