[arin-ppml] term limit proposal
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 21:11:21 EDT 2014
Reading with some interest ...let me say that I have no experience of the
AC nor BoT....but some observations;
What exactly is the problem we are proposing a solution to?
Cannot be a social and travel club.... For sure
Originality and or fresh ideas? Not too sure bout that either
..as a body you are bound by too many codes and practices and more
important; the range of interests, vested and otherwise to be considered,
begs for a certain level of stability at certain nodes in the process of
shepherding at am organizational level.
It would be interesting to see a history of the membership of both ...maybe
the community can gleam some wisdom from the movements in/out ...some
suggested that more participants resign than those who may want to super
glue themselves to the chair.
What I have noticed as a contributing member on the ppml is a constant
commitment to the task by the AC & BoT members I have had the occasion to
interact with.
OK, so take a year off every 3 years and come back refueled.
Personally, I would feel more accomplished doing x years and moving aside
for someone else..because it may well take close to a year to adjust your
seat for effective and meaningful service to the community and when you
take a year off, you are not coming back as such.....you are new to the
seat....but with a history.
History is a complication in the scheme of things...with a tendency to
start where you left off...although you may now find yourself in a very
different construct from where you left off.
Thus introducing a further quotient of personal conflict?
What % of AC and BoT members experience burnout? I would prefer to think
that there is some kind of alarm to safeguard the community from such
inefficiencies in the shepherding process.
Just another view for what it is worth.
Rudi Daniel
On Mar 26, 2014 2:07 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal (Bill Darte)
> 2. Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal (John Springer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:53:38 -0500
> From: Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>, ARIN-PPML List
> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal
> Message-ID:
> <CAMApp36CkSqZHPW+Cy=
> aitQiH5RPcKSgBLz5Ti45bkV_F-dSPg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Scott said:
> "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."
>
>
> Scott, I am interested to know more about what you consider examples of new
> ideas and approaches.... given the highly scripted role of the AC in
> support of the PDP, and given the schedules for AC and ARIN meetings, our
> standing rules and Robert's Rules all guiding our process and activities.
> Also, we as a body are most often criticized IMO for being too liberal in
> our interpretations and support for policy proposals that are re-hashes of
> ideas disposed of in the past or for continuing to engage with proposals
> that are 'moving deck chairs' or v4 exhaustion which the community has
> consistently asked us to stop doing. I'm sure many would say our workload
> is artificially high now.
>
> I do not agree that the AC is tending toward becoming a social and travel
> club...I think everyone takes their duties and role in travel seriously,
> but I find no fault with people endeavoring to know one another better, to
> understand where they are coming from and to build relationships. More
> quality change comes through trust than any other organizational or
> technical skill IMO. And, listening is as important a skill as is speaking
> when it comes to understanding policy issues and other's perspectives.
>
> In our volunteer role, we all spend a great deal of time with policy
> proposals and policy discussion at meetings and in between. If we have our
> different approaches and a diversity of people on the AC, you can thank the
> founders of ARIN and the electorate of the membership community. It seems
> to me your are arguing for less diversity in approaches than more in some
> ways.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:23 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/74038e92/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net>, ARIN-PPML List
> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal
> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1403261118070.48789 at mail.inlandnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> It's going to be a little hard to know to whom I am replying due to
> non-indentation of replies, but I'll do my best.
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand 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...
>
> I agree that this does not yet seem to rise to the level of a problem.
> There seems to be rather a lot of new and new/old faces (Kevin, myself,
> Milton, Tina, Andrew) lately.
>
> > 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.
>
> More information is always good. Four of the above five having not been
> re-elected, I don't know what conclusions can be drawn about our
> popularity. How well people are *liked* and questions of how popular
> people are recall to me a particularly odious time in my life prior to
> military service. If, in fact, that is what is going on here, perhaps we
> can address that particular matter in a more targeted way than term
> limits. I can recall some pretty candid discussions that have taken place.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, don't do that then. Term limits are not the answer for this
> situation. Surely you aren't suggesting that if terms limits were in
> place, this mid-term ennui would not have occured.
> ?
> > 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'm not immediately seeing any conclusion to be inferred from this
> observation.
>
> > 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.
>
> But higher lately, right?
>
> > 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:
>
> Take these one at a time.
>
> > IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate?new ideas and
> > approaches. More new faces would help with that. ?
>
> Speaking as one of those new faces, I can say with some authority that I
> approach the idea of floating a lot of new ideas and approaches with some
> caution. I am getting a little more willing to take some risks with
> experience, but a case could be made that I at least am more conservative
> than many old timers.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a bit of a tautological approach. The f2f experience is superior
> to the list in some ways. We need to travel to get f2f. We tend to like
> the f2f experience. Therefore, our motivation is exclusively to be a
> travel and social club. I have heard the grumbling about policy weenie
> wannabies junketing about on endless boondogles, but that is not the way
> it seems to me. Again, if this is a specific problem, let's air it out.
> Term limits seems like a particularly ineffective approach to this one.
>
> > Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a
> 15-member AC in the first place. ?
>
> We did talk about this at some length. I am not against raising the
> subject again.
>
> > In all of the other RIRs,
>
> In addition to being a statement of fact, this is also an appeal to the
> bandwagon, and thus an insufficient reason for action. When I have seen
> such an observation floated in other fora, the response has sometimes been
> that the RIR system is ideal for each region to do things in their own
> way.
>
> > 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...
>
> OK, I'm game. But it looks like a lot of ground to cover from here to
> there. It might make a nice change from deck chairs though. Is
> restructuring the AC in scope for the AC?
>
> > -Scott
>
> John Springer
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 105, Issue 48
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/bfe70426/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list