<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Scott Leibrand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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 </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>
There may not be many options in the first place, and imposing turn limits, may </div><div>be forcing members to elect people they don't want, by choosing the lesser of the worst.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">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 </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>How is this evidence that members being re-elected are less effective?</div><div>How do you measure effectiveness of an AC member?</div><div><br></div><div>I am quite sure there is no law of nature that says a committee member inherently becomes less effective</div>
<div>after serving a certain amount of time, and it is entirely within reach of voting members to come to their own conclusion.</div><div><br></div><div>I would consider it to likely be orthogonal to the number of terms the AC member had served.</div>
<div>Although, the accumulation of experience, and the ARIN memberships' continued votes for the person,</div><div>are evidence that the community considers the AC member effective to their satisfaction.</div><div>
<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>If there is a desire to force churn to occur, in the name of "encouraging new ideas and hard work".</div><div><br></div><div>Which is really what "Term limits" means ---- limiting the voting rights of members, by prohibiting</div>
<div>them from re-electing committee members more than X years.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps there should be a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated.</div><div>Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd numbered years.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The addition of 2 more members in even numbered years, provides for additions that are non-incumbents.</div><div><br></div><div>The subtraction of 2 more members in odd numbered years, effectively means the members</div>
<div>then get to pick which incumbents they do want to keep on the AC.</div><div><br></div><div>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?<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>But leaves the choice with the voting members, as to which AC members to keep on,</div><div>even beyond magical number of 6 years, or whatever.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">provide.<div>
<br></div><div>Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see:</div><div><br></div><div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="695" style="border-collapse:collapse;width:522pt">
<colgroup><col width="64" style="width:48pt">
<col width="70" style="width:53pt">
<col width="90" style="width:68pt">
<col width="107" style="width:80pt">
<col width="101" style="width:76pt">
<col width="263" style="width:197pt">
</colgroup><tbody><tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" width="64" style="height:14.4pt;width:48pt">Year</td>
<td width="70" style="width:53pt">Re-elected</td>
<td width="90" style="width:68pt">Newly Elected</td>
<td width="107" style="width:80pt">Newly appointed</td>
<td width="101" style="width:76pt">NOT Re-elected</td>
<td width="263" style="width:197pt">Notes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2013</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2012</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2011</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3-year incumbent not re-elected</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2010</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td></td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2009</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2008</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height:14.4pt">
<td height="19" style="height:14.4pt">2007</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr></tbody></table></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>-JH </div></div></div></div>