Re: Want to be on the IESG?

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

In the realm of email that I thought I'd sent, but upon review, did not ...

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:01 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snipped down to>

>
> (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).


Spencer does, in fact, remember that draft (available at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first-01.txt),
having been a co-author.

There are details that were correct in 2009, or even in 2006, that need to
be changed, and *I* was certainly more focused on Nomcom evaluation of IESG
incumbents than anyone else, when we were writing this, but I think that
ancient draft would be a reasonable starting point if anyone in the
community thought pursuing the idea of evaluating incumbents differently
was worthwhile.

And I still think evaluating incumbents, especially on the IESG, was a good
idea, then, and now.

Best,

Spencer