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

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 04:07:00 EDT 2014


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, 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
>

This would tend to suggest that by and large the community is satisfied
with the AC, or at least: the incumbent choices have been considered more
preferable options.

There may not be many options in the first place, and imposing turn limits,
may
be forcing members to elect people they don't want,  by choosing the lesser
of the worst.

the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the AC,
> 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 new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on
> difficult work, that new AC members tend to
>

How is this evidence that members being re-elected are less effective?
How do you measure effectiveness of an AC member?

I am quite sure there is no law of nature that says a committee member
inherently becomes less effective
after serving a certain amount of time,  and it is entirely within reach of
voting members to come to their own conclusion.

I would consider it to likely be orthogonal to the number of terms the AC
member had served.
Although,  the  accumulation of experience, and the ARIN memberships'
continued votes for the person,
are evidence that the community considers the AC member effective to their
satisfaction.


If there is a desire to force churn to occur, in the name of  "encouraging
new ideas and hard work".

Which is really what "Term limits"  means ----  limiting the voting rights
of members, by prohibiting
them from re-electing committee members more than X years.

Perhaps there should be 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.

The addition of 2  more members  in  even numbered years,  provides for
additions that are non-incumbents.

The subtraction of 2 more members in odd numbered years,  effectively means
the  members
then get  to pick  which incumbents they do want to keep on the AC.

Something like that  gets you churn and assures  supposed benefits of new
ideas or other desirable characteristics...  which for some unknown reason
(apparently?) can't come from long-term incumbents?

But leaves the choice with the voting members, as to  which AC members to
keep on,
even beyond magical number of 6 years, or whatever.



> 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
>
>
--
-JH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/b0204a26/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list