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

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> it is often up to the ARIN Board of Trustees to
>> decide whether to explore these initiatives when they are at an early stage.
> 
> Mission creep.

Yeah.  And misdirection, in that this is nowhere near an early stage.  A few people have been bringing this up, unremittingly, for a decade.  The majority have never been in favor of it, for exactly the reasons Bill states below.

On Apr 6, 2018, at 11:40 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Still "no" for the same reasons expressed last year. The bigger the
> board, the worse the paralysis at one end and groupthink at the other.
> 
> Optimal board sizes, in general, have been studied. A lot. The 7 you
> have is already on the high edge of optimal. If 7 people can't get it
> done, then either we've elected people who aren't willing to spend the
> time, ARIN has strayed too far from the core mission or ARIN has added
> too much paper-pushing overhead (too much "process") to the board's
> work.

Yep, exactly.  A board of four or five would be an improvement, going from seven to ten would be a good long slide further down into mediocrity and non-functionality.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180406/998be220/attachment.sig>