[arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Heather Schiller]

Once upon a time there was an individual who was quite vocal in their
misconceptions about ARIN and RIR governance, despite not having actively
participated.  Attempts were made to enlighten the individual.  Eventually
they were nominated and ran for a seat on the AC.  If there is something
you are so ardently opposed to, why not be part of the solution?  They won
and ended up being a fine addition to the AC, and coming around to a much
better understanding of how the system works.  IMO, it was well worth
having this individual on the AC, for them, for the AC and for the
community.

People come into and out of the numbers community for a variety of
reasons.  "How it works" can be taught -- the AC used to run training for
all AC members every January.  The rotational nature of the elections
ensures there are folks that know a good chunk of the history. Leif and
Chris were coming in around the time I was leaving.  Andrew has followed
and participated in policy before I was on the AC.  I have no doubt John
Curran, Rob Seastrom, staff and others in the community would be happy to
help any AC member that had questions about how or why something was done.
The mailing list and meeting archives are also available.

Listening is a huge part of the AC job-- listening to all the stakeholders
-- community, staff, board, and other AC members.  As engineers there is a
tendency to try to solve everything, to jump in and cut people off, to not
be aware of our biases, or to argue toward the position we've
already chosen.  It's hard to take everything in, consider and balance it
all.  The AC is designed to be large enough to encourage representation
from different parts of the community.   It's worth keeping that need for
diversity in mind as you vote -- you certainly wouldn't want the entire AC
to be large ISP's just as you wouldn't want it to be all brokers.

If you aren't sure about a candidate, email them.  Reach out and ask for a
1:1 and ask them questions.  Are they enthusiastic about policy?  Can they
lay out different points of view on a given policy?  Can they see the
broader picture of what impact a change may have?  Do they hear and
understand your concerns?  Do they have the time and energy to give?  Can
they play well with others?  More important than you may realize, as the
work of the AC can ground to a halt if everyone is argumentative.

It used to be that sitting AC members tried to be a bit reserved about
their own opinion because the number of people who contribute are a narrow
slice of the entire community.  We wanted to encourage discussion so we
could determine support, but not dominate the conversation.

 --Heather Schiller

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:00 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
> simpler.
>
> How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't
> participate on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the
> mechanics of how this all works ?
> I don't think it needs to be a written requirement but anyone voting
> should not vote because the candidate is a good chap, a good family father
> or a great technical expert or manager. It must understand how it works,
> what is involved, the process, the historic, etc and without speaking
> publiclly how can you evaluate and give your vote the the person ?
>
> Once in AC in my view the person should be as quiet as possible and
> refrain from giving even personal opinions about any proposals. I don't
> beleive in that thing "taking my hat off". There are not 2 persons there.
>
> But while community only it is expected someone putting his/her name for
> candidacy should have been active and be able to show he/she is up for the
> role.
>
> Fernando
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 14:37 Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML, <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> wrote:
>
>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>  writes:
>> >
>> >I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>> >outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>> >a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>> >Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
>> >to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
>> >least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
>> >demonstrated."
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
>> advisement.
>>
>> Leif Sawyer
>> AC Chair
>>
>> ----
>> Leif Sawyer
>> GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
>> t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231027/f82ff838/attachment.htm>