Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
> I think what this discussion has highlighted is that experience is
> valuable in both the EC and DG roles.
>
> Another thing that has become clear [Thanks to Terry] is that there
> isn't currently a manual, or some type of training day/program that an
> incoming EC member can (or must) have. I don't think this will be hard
> to fix and will discuss with the EC Chair about the possibility for
> implementing and documenting a manual and training program for the
> role, this is a great idea.
Awesome idea. Do you think that it is the sort of document that would be public for those interested in understanding how the EC works?
> > Also, perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, that for ex-EC members,
> or ex-DG's who are willing, perhaps there could be a new 'Life EC
> Member' with non-voting rights to be a part of the EC an mentor the
> serving EC members. Yes, a scary suggestion, am sure it would have
> many issues... but it is only an idea.
>
> Hey not a bad idea but given you don't pay EC members to serve for
> their term, now you'd now like them to serve for life, might not be too
> popular an idea :-) (joke)
I know what you mean, but we have some amazing people in the community who would certainly be worthy of such a status.
> Lets look at some of the question ....
Not that I am suggesting that this is the case, but it is easy to get the answers you want depending on how you ask the question.
How many languages was the survey produced in?
> I think the confusion is that the EC doesn't ask a limited subset of
> members "how much should we spend on travel", rather we ask all members
> what services , involvement and value they want from APNIC and we then
> ask that a budget is prepared to meet the requests of the general
> membership. It's not that we aren't asking the question, we are asking
> the question in a different manor and to a wider audience.
But different people have different interests. Some might care more about policy, some more about how an organisation is run.
> Skeeve, there is an honest effort being made to address the needs of
> members (see above). There are many direct results from the survey that
> I'm sure you have witnessed. So my comment still stands, having a very
> limited number of active members analyse each of the Costs Centres at
> each meeting simply isn't the correct process for member input, nor is
> it workable or fair to the other 2,295 members.
2295 members. How many responded to the survey? And do we have a regional breakdown on that?
> You also suggest there should be more reporting to members, I think
> there is a huge amount of reporting that happens at each APNIC meeting,
> it is the best part of a day of reports, from the Treasurer's report,
> EC's report, DG's reports, then each Senior/Area manager gives a
> report, there really is quite a lot of reporting at the meeting
Yes there is a lot, but sometimes we want more details. A DG budget paper asking for more money for something should be backed up with reasons.
> Overall this type of discussion is really useful, I think it has
> highlighted that the way the EC, DG and APNIC operate isn't entirely
> understood, so it's a great thing we are talking about it and we are
> getting some positives to make the process better.
Talk is awesome, action is better. But I do think that much will come from this discussion.
> Given that, I wouldn't mind asking if there is interest in a "meet the
> EC event" at each APNIC event, possibly during a coffee break in a
> spare room. Members who would like to either, meet the EC, ask
> questions or just provide general feedback could come to that room for
> a chat with the EC members, would that be useful ?
Yes, that is an excellent idea.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?