[arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal

Wed Mar 26 20:29:59 EDT 2014

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 <jschiller at google.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at 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 <scottleibrand at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at 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 at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20140327/0d4f559e/attachment.html>