Bill already said earlier on the thread he wasn't planning to run again. Scott
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:29 PM, CJ Aronson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
