[arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:39, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> I don't really disagree and
> I didn't find anything unreasonable but I thought the discussion about leasing was lively and brought in new participants and ended too soon. But as Heather points out, there is no double jeopardy.

I don’t entirely disagree, but I wasn’t voting on that particular one. ;-)

> I preferred the situation in the past when shepherds were there more to assist than to decide things unilaterally like edits and abandonment. Seems like my interactions with shepherds during Prop-151 in 2011 were on a more equitable footing, with them making suggestions but I decided.

Shepherds are still there more to assist. Shepherds cannot decide anything unilaterally.

Shepherds make recommendations to the AC and have some latitude to make edits (based on author and community feedback, not just their own opinions), but the AC as a whole 

Abandonment at that stage requires an affirmative vote of at least 8 AC members IIRC.

> On the spectrum of power to the AC versus power to the author I come down on the latter side. Unsurprisingly.

That has proven problematic in the past, mainly due to unresponsive authors more than due to differences between authors and AC shepherds.

> Would a recording of the AC meeting inhibit discussion?

Yes.

Owen

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Sat,28 Oct 2023 01:51:18 -0400 owen at delong.com wrote ----
> 
> I believe that proposal was abandoned due to substantial community opposition and little support 
> expressed on the mailing list. 
> 
> If you were waiting for the meeting to get support expressed, that was a poor choice. The majority 
> of policy development work is intended to be on the list with the meetings serving primarily 
> as an opportunity for fine tuning and semi-final comments on proposals that are nearly ready 
> for last call. Other proposals are discussed at the meetings as time permits (and that usually 
> means we make time for every active proposal at every meeting). 
> 
> But at a point where it appears to the AC that a proposal is extremely unlikely to reach 
> consensus (i.e. has significant strong opposition and minimal support), it’s perfectly reasonable 
> for the AC to make the determination to abandon. 
> 
> Owen 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 13:30, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi Bill, 
> > 
> > Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and candidates. 
> > The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive discussions between AC members. 
> > 
> > My story: 
> > Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent proposal to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid justifications for transfers was abandoned by the AC. 
> > As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust, live debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory. 
> > I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your opposition. 
> > However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our rhetorical ammunition. 
> > As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about abandonment I suppose. 
> > 
> > In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed intra-AC debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great. 
> > It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Mike 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> On Behalf Of William Herrin 
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM 
> > To: Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com <mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com>> 
> > Cc: arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> 
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit) 
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com <mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com>> wrote: 
> >> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but 
> >> not dominate the conversation. 
> > 
> > Hi Heather, 
> > 
> > Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC *not* dominating the conversation? 
> > 
> > Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal? 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Bill Herrin 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > William Herrin 
> > bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us> 
> > https://bill.herrin.us/ 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > ARIN-PPML 
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20231027/7805ee4a/attachment.htm>