Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 27 January 2021 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BD43A0CAC for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVW38fm520qU for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF333A0C9C for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A14EB2803F1; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:17:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
To: "Livingood, Jason" <>, "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:17:31 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:17:46 -0000

On 22/1/21 12:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> Finally, my own personal perspective is that re-appointment should be largely pro forma unless there is tangible evidence of someone being a poor fit for the role or otherwise struggling or failing to do their job in the 1st term. 

IMHO, I disagree. Some of the reasons are that the possible obvious 
outcome for this would be:

1) Most likely you'll get fewer candidates for roles where's the 
possibility of re-appointment, particularly if/when not being appointed 
can be seen by their managers as somebody else being better qualified 
for the role.

And, if you nominate and go through the burden of being a candidate, is 
it because you did it knowing that you would not be selected? Or is it 
"rumor has it that AD X has done a terrible job"?

2) Picking the best candidate now implicitly turns into firing the folk 
currently occupying the seat, rather than picking the best candidate. 
Which at the end of the day means results in the nomcom having to 
explain themselves how they rate this and that action (i.e., is there 
enough of a reason to fire the incumbent? Is there an established 
criteria for that?). Additionally, it publicly sends a message about the 
folk not being re-appointed that is not necessarily the message the 
nomcom is trying to convey ("We picked this one because he/she is really 
the best candidate" does not need to imply "Yeah, we fired the current 
AD because he/she was really bad")

Just my two cents,
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492