Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Board Composition

Guy Halse guy at
Wed May 4 06:20:23 UTC 2016


On 3 May 2016, at 20:51, Alan Barrett wrote:
> I see no real problem with campaigning before the slate is known.  Those
> who have been nominated probably know that fact, and if they choose not
> to keep it secret then I think that is their right.

This is a common, everyday occurrence in politics worldwide. For instance, later this year, South Africa will have local government elections. The candidate lists for those elections have not yet been released by the Independent Electoral Commission, yet it is public knowledge who some of the candidates for my ward will be.  And some of those candidates are already campaigning. This is an accepted norm in many countries. Ask yourself, how is what Andrew is doing any different?

In the same way, during the run-up to a political election, we see news coverage and debates about the candidates strengths and weaknesses. Andrew is promoting a candidate he believes is strong - irrespective of his reasons for doing so, that's his right; Owen raised a legitimate concern that he believed the community should be aware of, again his right. Debate ensued, and then got side-tracked into ad hominem attacks.

> I think that the Membership is capable of considering diversity when they vote.

^^ this is the single most important point. In spite of anything Andrew or Owen (or anyone else) says, the community choses who they cast their votes for. It is up to the community to exercise that vote wisely, and to inform themselves beforehand. These sorts of debates help with that, but only if people argue the positions.

FWIW I know both Andrew and Mike, and I've no reason to doubt either of their intent or integrity. I think both are good candidates for the board. Nevertheless, I completely agree with Owen's concerns - to the extent that I explained to Andrew last time around that despite thinking Mike was the better candidate at the time, in that election our vote would go to someone else. Because in that instance, we considered diversity in the Board to be more important than a particular individual's strengths. People are welcome to disagree with that position, and exercise their own votes differently.

However, in spite of all of this, I need to reiterate the plea from Nishal:

On 3 May 2016, at 20:11, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> now, please take this off the *RPD* list, since this is not about resource
> policy, and thus off-topic.
> the members list - the people that actually elect the afrinic board - is this
> way:

- Guy

More information about the RPD mailing list