The 360 degree review was Martin's suggestion. At the time it sounded like it mean a review for every angle (360 degrees in a circle).
Bill Darte is an upstanding member of the AC, and I personally wish he would continue to serve, but it seemed pretty clear that his intent is to not continue. Such a vacancy (if it happens) might be a good opportunity to repurpose the seat. Apologies for naming a particular seat, I was being lazy and didn't want to say should a seat be vacated early, or an incumbent plans to not re-run... we could easily redefine how that seat be filled without artificially displacing any current AC member. __Jason __Jason On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM, CJ Aronson <c...@daydream.com> wrote: > It doesn't matter if he says he's not running again. If we generically > want to make a seat appointed then fine but he has every right to change > his mind and run again. Leave AC member's names out of it. > > Thanks > ----Cathy > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Scott Leibrand > <scottleibr...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Bill already said earlier on the thread he wasn't planning to run again. >> >> Scott >> >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:29 PM, CJ Aronson <c...@daydream.com> wrote: >> >> Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is >> not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no >> prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either. >> Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work >> for this community. If you want to talk about changing a seat on the AC to >> be appointed that's fine but leave a particular person out of it. >> >> Thanks >> ----Cathy >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
_______________________________________________ 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.