[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 14:19:29 EDT 2014
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, 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.
That information is readily available:
PPML is publicly archived: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
All AC meeting minutes including vote counts are publicly archived:
All AC presentations at PPMs and PPCs are publicly archived:
I can not say why people vote the way they do (I've never cast an ARIN
ballot) but to say the information on AC members is not available is simply
>> 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.
If you can no longer do the work, resign (maybe like those past AC members
who left through "attrition" stepped down due to this knowledge of
themselves). The fact that you feel bad for not doing your best for a time
is testament to your character, but not a valid rationale for term limits.
I did not observe what you say you did in my three years on the AC. In
fact, I found many of the longest standing AC members to be the most active
>>> 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
>> 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.
As I said above, burnt out AC members leaving intentionally is actually a
sign of a working system of trust, not a need for term limits.
Also, let's not start making the "maths" fit your views, stick to the facts
(as you present them above):
- 5 seats are up for grabs in each election (appointments are additional
sometimes when someone steps down)
- in EVERY election you list, at least one new member was elected
- 1 out of 5 is 20% of that election cycle (you can't take it as a
percentage of the 10 that aren't up for election, of course they maintain
their seat that year, counting otherwise is disingenuous at best)
- 2 out of 5 is 40% and 3 out of 5 is 60%
- That makes 20-60% new AC members in _every_ election you list
>>> 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.
Thank you for listing what you see as actual problems. That is a huge step
forward. I have to say that I don't agree with you though. In my time on
the AC, the longest standing members where the least likely to be "perks"
driven and had the most thoughtful answers to new situations.
> 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
You want more new blood by having less people involved... Does not compute.
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...
Expecting these "policy shepherds" to appear whenever needed may be a tad
utopian. However, I applaud the offer of alternate ideas. If the community
can first agree on a problem statement, and then work out the best solution
to that problem by evaluating all the options, I will happily support the
outcome. Right now we have a solution with no clearly defined or agreed
upon problem seeking approval with little rationale. Let's be a tad more
diligent and honest is all I'm asking.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML