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

[rpd] Board Composition

Kyle Spencer kyle at
Wed May 4 07:45:04 UTC 2016

Hi all,

Watching from the sidelines.

I believe it is important to prevent organizational capture, and that
minimalist rules should be implemented in order to address this
vulnerability without being overly restrictive.

In other words, enact rules that prevent a crisis while otherwise allowing
for as much flexibility as possible.

For example, after deliberation, it might be agreed by the community that
two members from the same organization is allowable (i.e. is not a
potentially fatal threat to the governance model) but not three.

Kyle Spencer
On May 4, 2016 9:25 AM, "Guy Halse" <guy at> wrote:

> Hi
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list