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

Wed Mar 26 21:06:30 EDT 2014

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 <cja at 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 <scottleibrand at 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 <cja at 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 <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.
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/8c54e494/attachment.htm>