<p dir="ltr">Reading with some interest ...let me say that I have no experience of the AC nor BoT....but some observations;<br>
What exactly is the problem we are proposing a solution to?<br>
Cannot be a social and travel club.... For sure<br>
Originality and or fresh ideas? Not too sure bout that either<br>
..as a body you are bound by too many codes and practices and more important; the range of interests, vested and otherwise to be considered, begs for a certain level of stability at certain nodes in the process of shepherding at am organizational level.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It would be interesting to see a history of the membership of both ...maybe the community can gleam some wisdom from the movements in/out ...some suggested that more participants resign than those who may want to super glue themselves to the chair.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What I have noticed as a contributing member on the ppml is a constant commitment to the task by the AC & BoT members I have had the occasion to interact with.</p>
<p dir="ltr">OK, so take a year off every 3 years and come back refueled.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Personally, I would feel more accomplished doing x years and moving aside for someone else..because it may well take close to a year to adjust your seat for effective and meaningful service to the community and when you take a year off, you are not coming back as such.....you are new to the seat....but with a history.</p>
<p dir="ltr">History is a complication in the scheme of things...with a tendency to start where you left off...although you may now find yourself in a very different construct from where you left off.<br>
Thus introducing a further quotient of personal conflict?</p>
<p dir="ltr">What % of AC and BoT members experience burnout? I would prefer to think that there is some kind of alarm to safeguard the community from such inefficiencies in the shepherding process. <br>
Just another view for what it is worth.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Rudi Daniel <br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 26, 2014 2:07 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal (Bill Darte)<br>
2. Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal (John Springer)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:53:38 -0500<br>
From: Bill Darte <<a href="mailto:billdarte@gmail.com">billdarte@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a>>, ARIN-PPML List<br>
<<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAMApp36CkSqZHPW+Cy=<a href="mailto:aitQiH5RPcKSgBLz5Ti45bkV_F-dSPg@mail.gmail.com">aitQiH5RPcKSgBLz5Ti45bkV_F-dSPg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Scott said:<br>
"IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and<br>
approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little<br>
bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a<br>
serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on<br>
the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather<br>
than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I<br>
definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time<br>
together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures."<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott, I am interested to know more about what you consider examples of new<br>
ideas and approaches.... given the highly scripted role of the AC in<br>
support of the PDP, and given the schedules for AC and ARIN meetings, our<br>
standing rules and Robert's Rules all guiding our process and activities.<br>
Also, we as a body are most often criticized IMO for being too liberal in<br>
our interpretations and support for policy proposals that are re-hashes of<br>
ideas disposed of in the past or for continuing to engage with proposals<br>
that are 'moving deck chairs' or v4 exhaustion which the community has<br>
consistently asked us to stop doing. I'm sure many would say our workload<br>
is artificially high now.<br>
<br>
I do not agree that the AC is tending toward becoming a social and travel<br>
club...I think everyone takes their duties and role in travel seriously,<br>
but I find no fault with people endeavoring to know one another better, to<br>
understand where they are coming from and to build relationships. More<br>
quality change comes through trust than any other organizational or<br>
technical skill IMO. And, listening is as important a skill as is speaking<br>
when it comes to understanding policy issues and other's perspectives.<br>
<br>
In our volunteer role, we all spend a great deal of time with policy<br>
proposals and policy discussion at meetings and in between. If we have our<br>
different approaches and a diversity of people on the AC, you can thank the<br>
founders of ARIN and the electorate of the membership community. It seems<br>
to me your are arguing for less diversity in approaches than more in some<br>
ways.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes<br>
>>> from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare<br>
>>> that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an<br>
>>> AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues<br>
>>> on the AC,<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a<br>
>> problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a<br>
>> great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to<br>
>> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections...<br>
>><br>
><br>
> That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different.<br>
> I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects<br>
> to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact<br>
> in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were<br>
> readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on<br>
> things like accomplishments and voting records.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is<br>
>>> re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting<br>
>>> the benefit of<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are<br>
>> less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your<br>
>> first two terms? If not you, than who?<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective,<br>
> but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a<br>
> lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly<br>
> corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting<br>
> after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on<br>
>>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was<br>
>>> elected, I see:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes<br>
>>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected<br>
>>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008<br>
>>> 2 3 2007 3 2<br>
>>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was<br>
>>> not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the<br>
>>> ballot.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five<br>
>> open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range<br>
> of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term<br>
> incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be<br>
> quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low.<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new<br>
>>> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly<br>
>>> sacrificing experience and continuity.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing,<br>
>>> so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto<br>
>>> the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I<br>
>>> just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from<br>
>>> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when<br>
>>> casting their votes?<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the<br>
>> _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected<br>
>> is NOT a problem.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits<br>
> would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be<br>
> possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them:<br>
><br>
> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and<br>
> approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little<br>
> bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a<br>
> serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on<br>
> the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather<br>
> than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I<br>
> definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time<br>
> together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures.<br>
><br>
> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a<br>
> 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply<br>
> have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members<br>
> of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a<br>
> consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe<br>
> discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs<br>
> select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the<br>
> shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to<br>
> actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or<br>
> not, but it's food for thought, anyway...<br>
><br>
> -Scott<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ARIN-Discuss<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/74038e92/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140326/74038e92/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT)<br>
From: John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>><br>
To: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a>>, ARIN-PPML List<br>
<<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:alpine.BSF.2.00.1403261118070.48789@mail.inlandnet.com">alpine.BSF.2.00.1403261118070.48789@mail.inlandnet.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
It's going to be a little hard to know to whom I am replying due to<br>
non-indentation of replies, but I'll do my best.<br>
<br>
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> AC,<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections...<br>
<br>
I agree that this does not yet seem to rise to the level of a problem.<br>
There seems to be rather a lot of new and new/old faces (Kevin, myself,<br>
Milton, Tina, Andrew) lately.<br>
<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> they could base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records.<br>
<br>
More information is always good. Four of the above five having not been<br>
re-elected, I don't know what conclusions can be drawn about our<br>
popularity. How well people are *liked* and questions of how popular<br>
people are recall to me a particularly odious time in my life prior to<br>
military service. If, in fact, that is what is going on here, perhaps we<br>
can address that particular matter in a more targeted way than term<br>
limits. I can recall some pretty candid discussions that have taken place.<br>
<br>
> 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<br>
> benefit of<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> terms? If not you, than who?<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> myself and other AC members.<br>
<br>
Well, don't do that then. Term limits are not the answer for this<br>
situation. Surely you aren't suggesting that if terms limits were in<br>
place, this mid-term ennui would not have occured.<br>
?<br>
> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide.<br>
> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see:<br>
><br>
> Year<br>
> Re-elected<br>
> Newly Elected<br>
> Newly appointed<br>
> NOT Re-elected<br>
> Notes<br>
> 2013<br>
> 4<br>
> 1<br>
> 1<br>
> 2012<br>
> 4<br>
> 1<br>
> 1<br>
> 2011<br>
> 4<br>
> 1<br>
> 1<br>
> 3-year incumbent not re-elected<br>
> 2010<br>
> 3<br>
> 2<br>
> 1<br>
> 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected<br>
> 2009<br>
> 3<br>
> 2<br>
> 1<br>
> 2008<br>
> 2<br>
> 3<br>
> 2007<br>
> 3<br>
> 2<br>
><br>
> 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 ballot.<br>
<br>
I'm not immediately seeing any conclusion to be inferred from this<br>
observation.<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. ?But it's actually less than 1%. ?IMO that's too low.<br>
<br>
But higher lately, right?<br>
<br>
> 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<br>
> sacrificing experience and continuity.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
> ?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<br>
> that is published for the ARIN membership to review when casting their votes?<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> with better solutions to each one of them:<br>
<br>
Take these one at a time.<br>
<br>
> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate?new ideas and<br>
> approaches. More new faces would help with that. ?<br>
<br>
Speaking as one of those new faces, I can say with some authority that I<br>
approach the idea of floating a lot of new ideas and approaches with some<br>
caution. I am getting a little more willing to take some risks with<br>
experience, but a case could be made that I at least am more conservative<br>
than many old timers.<br>
<br>
> We also tend a little bit toward becoming a<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures.<br>
<br>
This is a bit of a tautological approach. The f2f experience is superior<br>
to the list in some ways. We need to travel to get f2f. We tend to like<br>
the f2f experience. Therefore, our motivation is exclusively to be a<br>
travel and social club. I have heard the grumbling about policy weenie<br>
wannabies junketing about on endless boondogles, but that is not the way<br>
it seems to me. Again, if this is a specific problem, let's air it out.<br>
Term limits seems like a particularly ineffective approach to this one.<br>
<br>
> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a 15-member AC in the first place. ?<br>
<br>
We did talk about this at some length. I am not against raising the<br>
subject again.<br>
<br>
> In all of the other RIRs,<br>
<br>
In addition to being a statement of fact, this is also an appeal to the<br>
bandwagon, and thus an insufficient reason for action. When I have seen<br>
such an observation floated in other fora, the response has sometimes been<br>
that the RIR system is ideal for each region to do things in their own<br>
way.<br>
<br>
> they simply have a policy working<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> food for thought, anyway...<br>
<br>
OK, I'm game. But it looks like a lot of ground to cover from here to<br>
there. It might make a nice change from deck chairs though. Is<br>
restructuring the AC in scope for the AC?<br>
<br>
> -Scott<br>
<br>
John Springer<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 105, Issue 48<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>