[arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/26/2023 12:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
> check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
> against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
> evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?
>
> Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
> a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
> members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.
>
> I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.
>
Bill,

I have also used this metric in the past when considering AC 
candidates.  We will have a large turnover in AC seats this year so 
perhaps this metric is a bit skewed this year?   Or maybe it is a trend?

I think one question to ask would be is this an artifact of the AC 
candidates and current AC members and PPML or PPML as a whole? I 
certainly would like to see more collaboration on the PPML by AC members 
but we just don't see that.  There has been discussion on and off about 
how the AC contributes to the public discussion with an awareness of 
their position could create a bias in the discussion.  This has been 
specifically discussed regarding comments at the microphone during the 
public policy meeting, but the sentiment I think also carries over a 
little bit onto the list.

While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active 
collaborators on this list.  My perception as someone who has been on 
this list for a long time is that the number of active collaborators has 
decreased over time.  One could certainly "do the research" to confirm 
or deny that perception.  There could be many reasons for that, but are 
those reasons also applicable to AC members and candidates?


Hope this helps,

Andrew  (AC member but not speaking for the AC)