On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com>
wrote:| Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I
think term limits would
| help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be
| possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them:
I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested deficiencies, and the
suggested solutions, then let the community collectively
judge which deficiencies are problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the
most problematic issues with the smallest collateral
damage.
Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. This could give the
community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work
contribution, and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on
when voting than a popularity contest.
Jimmy Hess suggested:
a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated.
Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd
numbered years.
We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and
require the appointment to be filled with someone who has
never been on the AC. It could continue to have a three year term, or could be
shortened.
Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate
election. In this case four seats could be elected out of the
pool of candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has
the most votes that has never served on the AC.
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote:
IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from
resignations and people deciding not
to run again. It's very rare that an incumbent fails to get re-elected.
Given what I've observed as an AC
member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues
on the AC,
That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem.
From my perspective it simply indicates that
the community does a great job selecting winning candidates initially, those
candidates go on to be solid AC members, and
therefor continue to win elections...
That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. I
would say it indicates that the community *likes* the
people it elects to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a
disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. It would
be better if more information were readily available to the membership, so they
could base their choices on things like
accomplishments and voting records.
both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is
re-electing members who are less effective, and
we're therefore not getting the benefit of
How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less
effective? Are you saying that YOU are less
effective now then in your first two terms? If not you, than who?
Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, but I found
myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter,
and putting in a lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I
have mostly corrected that now, but I definitely
see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time, both in
myself and other AC members.
new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult
work, that new AC members tend to
provide.
Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I
see:
Year
Re-elected
Newly Elected
Newly appointed
NOT Re-elected
Notes
2013
4
1
1
2012
4
1
1
2011
4
1
1
3-year incumbent not re-elected
2010
3
2
1
1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected
2009
3
2
1
2008
2
3
2007
3
2
As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not
re-elected, and that was in a year when
there were 5 incumbents on the ballot.
I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open
positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually
pretty fantastic.
Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of
7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3%
of full-term incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I
would be quite happy. But it's actually less than
1%. IMO that's too low.
I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people,
with new ideas, approaches, and energy,
onto the AC, without unduly sacrificing experience and continuity.
Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd
love to hear other ideas for how we can
get more fresh faces onto the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process
somehow? One idea I just had would be to
allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants that is
published for the ARIN membership to
review when casting their votes?
As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we
are trying to solve here? Capable AC members
being re-elected is NOT a problem.
Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits would
help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a
panacea, and it may be possible to come up with better solutions to each one of
them:
IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and
approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also
tend a little bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that
is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry
about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and because
we like to travel, rather than because we like to
talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I definitely see that most new AC
members are more inclined to spend our time
together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures.
Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a
15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs,
they simply have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested
members of the community do all of the heavy
lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. An alternative
to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago)
might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds
for each policy proposal, and assign the shepherd the
role of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a
consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or
not, but it's food for thought, anyway...
-Scott
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com|571-266-0006
