Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either. Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work for this community. If you want to talk about changing a seat on the AC to be appointed that's fine but leave a particular person out of it.
Thanks ----Cathy On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > | 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 with better solutions to each one of them: > > I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested deficiencies, > and the suggested solutions, then let the community collectively judge > which deficiencies are problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the > most problematic issues with the smallest collateral damage. > > Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. This could give the > community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work contribution, > and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on when voting > than a popularity contest. > > Jimmy Hess suggested: > a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated. > Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd > numbered years. > > We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and > require the appointment to be filled with someone who has never been on the > AC. It could continue to have a three year term, or could be shortened. > > Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate > election. In this case four seats could be elected out of the pool of > candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has the > most votes that has never served on the AC. > > ___Jason > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> 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 the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues >>>> on the AC, >>>> >>> >>> 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 selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to >>> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >>> >> >> 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 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 they could base their choices on >> things like accomplishments and voting records. >> >> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> 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 terms? If not you, than who? >>> >> >> 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 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 myself and other AC members. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on >>>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>>> >>>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >>>> elected, I see: >>>> >>>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 >>>> 2 3 2007 3 2 >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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 replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be >> quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. >> >> >>>> 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 >>>> sacrificing experience and continuity. >>>> >>>> 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. 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 that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >>>> casting their votes? >>>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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 with better solutions to each one of them: >> >> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and >> approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little >> bit toward becoming a 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 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 spend our time >> together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. >> >> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a >> 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply >> have a policy working 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 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 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 food for thought, anyway... >> >> -Scott >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
