[ARIN-consult] Community Consultation on Increasing the Size of the ARIN Board of Trustees

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Thu Sep 7 12:58:29 EDT 2017

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:41 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2017, at 5:32 AM, John Springer <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I never saw a response to this. Is there any such thing?
>> I see that Tempkin at NANOG is doing a little hand wringing about the NANOG nominations and I would like to have some sense of where ARIN is at officially on the subject of diversity before I run my mouth. The RIPE diversity initiative is burbling along and NANOG could surely use some work, but what to say, what to say.
> John - 
>    Regarding the specific community consultation (on increasing the size of 
>    the ARIN Board), the proposed change was considered during the recent
>    ARIN Board workshop that occurred on 15-16 August, and was put to vote.
>    The motion to increase the size of the Board of Trustees failed to meet the
>    necessary approval threshold, and thus failed to pass.   Minutes of the ARIN
>    Board meetings are here:   https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html

Speaking for myself, and not for the board as a whole, my sense was that the board has acknowledged both the math and the feedback that point out that there’s no connection between size and diversity, and that the board is treating the two as separate issue.

Diversity is being addressed by not disqualifying candidates on the basis of their not being white guys.  That appears to be working thus far.  We’ll see how it goes in the election, but the slate that the nomcom has presented contains excellent candidates, far better-qualified than in an average year, and representing the diversity of ARIN membership.  So, my take on that is “so far, so good,” but we’ll see how it winds up after the election before calling it a complete success.  Then, next year, we do it again, and by that point, we may be able to call the problem solved.

Board size is controversial.  There are some folks, like myself, who believe that larger boards are, by their very nature, unproductive, and thus to be eschewed.  There are others whose principal argument seems to be that with a larger board, more people can slack off while still achieving quorum, who think that makes a larger board desirable.  Me, I say that just goes to prove my point.  At any rate, the motion to increase the size of the board did not pass, again.  People can keep trying it.  Whatever.  Just seems like wasting time to me.


More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list