Re: Want to be on the IESG?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, October 1, 2021 14:18 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:

> (Please forward to other individuals; this general mailing
> list isn't wide enough.)
> 
> Nominations close in ten days. The IAB has eight people vying
> for six positions.  All other technical positions – i.e.,
> the IESG – are running unopposed.
> 
> Given the recent survey, I view this as disastrous.  Have any
> outgoing members tried to find replacements?

Rich,

Three observations (supplementing those from Spencer, Keith, and
others but not disagreeing with them):

(1) While Nomcoms have rarely taken advantage of it, my
understanding from the beginning of the Nomcom model has been
that Nomcoms are free to recruit, twist arms, etc.   This may be
the year for doing that.

(2) I think looking at things in terms of "want to be on the
IESG?" may be the wrong question.  "If you believe you could do
the job of an AD, are you willing to serve the community for a
few years in one of those positions" might be closer to what we
are looking for.  There have certainly been many exceptions but
people who really want to be on the IESG --in the sense of,
e.g., considering it an important career move or to grind some
specific axe -- have sometimes turned out to be part of the
problem.  Note that this has sometimes also been a problem with
the IAB, not just the IESG.

(3) From observation of results, Nomcoms are often inclined to
return incumbents who are willing to serve again (and who have
not been absolute disasters).   This is understandable:
borrowing a metaphor, not only is the devil one knows better
than the one one does not, but the good person one knows is
clearly more attractive than someone unknown (at least for
performance in that role).  For people who believe an incumbent
has been doing an ok (or better) job, that is a disincentive to
putting their names in for that position... especially if doing
so requires rearranging of schedules, getting employer
permission, guaranteeing travel and time support, etc.  I have
no idea how to solve that problem, at least without changes the
IESG has been disinclined to consider or let the community
consider (Spencer might even remember an ancient (and long-dead)
attempt at part of the issue in the form of
draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first).

best,
   john