I can't recall seeing CEO rolls advertised publicly before. Wouldn't this be frustrating for their top executives who see themselves as ideal an candidate?
I've seen a lot of CEO and ED positions advertised in magazines over the years. Usually they are in an upscale classified ads section near the back. I can't speak to why an organization would or wouldn't do that as opposed to a discreet approach, but internal candidates would know either way.
Maybe it's something similar to what they do in the ivory tower where they have to show they are looking for candidates in all sorts of different places beside internally to combat cries of nepotism and favoritism? Maybe that's overthinking things?
also, do you not ever tell a potential employer you have an offer from elsewhere, and to either offer more or you won't be in a position to accept their offer? if you don't, you should, it works.
Holy imposter syndrome, Batman! Anyways, I think he is leaving, not the other way around. ACM CEO seems like a thankless admin job without much prestige, which you can probably get more of in a nice CS department administrative position.
All of those positions are elected, there isn’t any affirmative action involved. It is up to the ACM membership to decide who to elect, though often only a few candidates volunteer to run.
It's weird how you cite Jack Davidson's website, then go to Wikipedia for information on Cherri Pancake. I checked her website and it turns out she has research interests too. Even just looking at the Wikipedia article you cited, you stop right before it goes on to discusss how she spent over 3 decades doing computer science, 2 of them while active within the ACM.
Do you really think this election is a qualified man vs an unqualified woman because the man has research interests and the woman did other things before becoming a computer scientist?
An academic/professional association exists to advance the interests of its members. Normally, at minimum, the president of such an association would hold the top degree in the relevant field. The President of the American Bar Association has a JD. The President of the American Medical Association has an MD, the President of the American Chemical Society has a PhD in Chemistry. It is normal for an association to elect someone at the top of their field academically to represent them. Obviously this person must have other skills as well to be an effective leader.
If you derisively refer to someone with a PhD in CS to be a "CS Nerd", don't join the ACM. The problem we have here is that the leadership of the ACM should be representing and advocating for the membership. The current leadership sees the membership as the problem. If you dare to talk about this, you get censored.
There are degrees beyond JD and MD for the legal and medical fields. JD and MD are just the minimum degrees necessary to practice in those fields. There is no such minimum degree for computing, and computing is a new enough field that many schools didn't even offer it as a major until recently.
Of course, Dr. Pancake has a PhD in a relevant field so your objection doesn't even apply to the candidates you listed.
Agreed. My point was that the experience listed is not directly related. But it's certainly true that significant experience elsewhere can provide useful perspective.
And what does the ACM do that's different from the ACM President's role?