RE: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections

John C Klensin <> Sun, 24 January 2021 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFC73A0CE2 for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZstk8F-MMoT for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3513A0CCC for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1l3oVk-0006qh-IX; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 18:09:36 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 18:09:29 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, 'Bron Gondwana' <>
cc: "''" <>
Subject: RE: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
Message-ID: <28656DF8FE9CF8FD65A91C6E@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <BA07FAFAE7BBE5C47BCB7F58@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:09:41 -0000

--On Sunday, January 24, 2021 20:19 +0000 "STARK, BARBARA H"
<> wrote:

>> I do worry about another issue, one that Rich did not mention.
>> I remember Barbara posting a note strongly encouraging people
>> to put their names in even if there were incumbents willing to
>> serve an additional term.   Because putting one's name in
>> requires considerable effort, if the impression in the
>> community is that incumbents will almost always be returned,
>> it is going to be harder and harder to find anyone to
>> volunteer for their slots (I note that one incumbent this
>> time ran unopposed).  But that concern isn't new either;
>> Spencer and I addressed it and a possible solution in the
>> second I-D mentioned above.
> I'm not commenting on the broader debate. But I did want to
> point out that I specifically noted that people interested in
> ultimately being appointed to a position might consider
> running against popular incumbents in order to get experience
> with the process. I know that 2 of the 3 newly appointed ADs
> had previously (unsuccessfully) run for AD positions, and I'm
> not sure of the 3rd. It's not true of everyone -- but there is
> often a tendency for people to exude nervousness and lack of
> confidence the first time through a process like this. Having
> spent the time myself to go through the nominee process
> unsuccessfully 2 years ago, I can say I found that experience
> very educational and feel the effort was well worth it. 


You did indeed and I had forgotten, for which I apologize.  But
it seems to me there is a big difference between "put your name
in, you probably won't get the position, but you will learn
things that might help the next time" and "apply for this on the
assumption that you might get it".  I know that, this time, I
tried to convince one person I considered qualified to run who
basically told me that the experience when they applied for a
position in a different year had been sufficiently
time-consuming and stressful that they were not likely to ever
apply for such a position again.  It was not the first time I've
been told very similar things.  

There is probably nothing that can be done to prevent that kind
of reaction, but it may be a tradeoff to be thought about for
the future.

Any thoughts on whether it would be helpful to start collecting
comments on candidates, new appointees, and/or continuing
incumbents now with the understanding that no one would look at
them before the 2021-2022 Nomcom was seated?