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

Wed Mar 26 20:44:52 EDT 2014

Hi Jason,

Pardon my ignorance please, but what is "a 365 degree assessment."? A 
quick google turns up 365 degree total marketing and 360 degree 
assessments and 360 degree feedback. Is this like the Talking Heads 365 
degrees? a typo?

Also, Bill D. has been talked out of not running before. It might be 
premature to start disposing of his place just yet. just sayin'

John Springer

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Jason Schiller 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
> 
> 
>