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

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

ALAIN AINA aalain at trstech.net
Wed Oct 26 09:44:39 UTC 2016 

Hello All,

It is obvious that we do have issues here….

Everyone remember the co-chairs elections on the fly we had in Pointe-Noire and Gaborone?  After these dramatic scenarios we heard proposals in the rooms for :

- having  3 co-chairs
-electing  interim co-chair and give time to elect co-chair following normal process when last minutes resignation occurred as during these 2 meetings.
-etc…

It has also be brought up the issue of having the two chairs(according to the PDP) and two co-chairs( according to the common language) disagreeing on the way forward and the idea of having either :

-  3 chairs or  co-chairs
- one chair and co-chair(s). In case  of tie or conflict, chair voice prevails. 

But let me focus for the other important issues which are moderation of list,  face to face discussings and driving the process to “rough Consensus” or to closure.

The PDP made the choice of “Working Group”, “Working Group Chairs”,  and “Rough Consensus”, from an adaptation from RFC 2026. 

Managing the Working group activities and process as well as  the “rough consensus” process have been challenging. A working  Group usually  benefits from a strong leadership  and clear procedures.

But  in the absence of  explicit definition of the WG management principles and rules and “rough consensus” process,  are we not supposed to follow the Working Group Guidelines and Procedures as  described by RFC 2418 and RFC 3934 ?

- Working Group operations as described by section 3  of RFC 2418

- Co-chairs role as described at section 6.1  of RFC 2418

Section 6.1.: WG Chair

The Chair's responsibility encompasses at least the following:

* Ensure WG process and content management
  
* Moderate the WG email list

* Plan WG Sessions

* Communicate results of sessions

* Distribute the workload

* Document development

* Document publication

* Document implementations

      
-  Make decision through “Rough consensus”  as described by section 3.3 of RFC2418  and considers RFC7282 on “rough consensus”


https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt>

Thanks

—Alain



> On Oct 26, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Seun,
> 
> 
> You wrote,
> 
> 
> SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining  consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work.
> 
> Thanks for acknowledging the issues and your challenges as former Co-chair.
> 
> SO: I hope you also READ my comment within context and i quote the relevant sections below: "...the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus..." The point is that because consensus building is not documented, it makes some parts of the community (or a community member) often cry foul on the decision of the Co-Chair and that is the challenge. Perhaps, I should note that AFRINIC is not the only RIR that doesn't have a consensus building document and while consensus building isn't really documented within AFRINIC the Co-Chairs do make attempt to gauge consensus(+rough)  in a manner similar to that of the IETF. Nevertheless, due to the uniqueness of our community I think it may be a good thing to document even though irrespective of what we finally put on paper, we still require that the community have faith and trust in their elected Co-Chairs as that can't be documented.
>  
>  Can you please provide links to the document or discussion in archive?
> 
> SO:  I do not know what the current status of the document is but here is the url to the version on my drive which may/may not be the latest version.: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOQTSXAr_HzKP8jqrOYKESzyubA680JUsV57yBmfBNU/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOQTSXAr_HzKP8jqrOYKESzyubA680JUsV57yBmfBNU/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> Regards
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:36:36 PM
> To: Omo Oaiya
> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC RPD MList.
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review?
>  
> Hello,
> 
> Speaking on my personal behalf and as a former Co-Chair of PDWG, do find a few comments inline:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4.
> 
> The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions” of the group.  
> 
> - It did not describe what these administrative functions were.  
> SO: The overall "administrative" roles and responsibilities of the co-chairs can be found at the PDWG homepage. Does it need to be further broken down than it currently is or does it need to be expanded? I will leave that to the community to discuss and determine. I put the current roles below:
> 
> Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs
> 
> Determining whether there is consensus during open policy discussions.
> Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings.
> Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call).
> Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of Directors.
> ref: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg <http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg>
>  
> - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. 
> 
> SO: Hmm...for every election/selection, there has always been election/selection criteria[1].  Although the nomcom leads this process, a quick look at the Bylaw seem to imply that nomcom scope is within Board/Board related elections alone[2] (that may also be something to fix). However the Bylaw was clear on the fact that the Election committee coordinates all election processes[3] which I believe includes that of the Co-Chairs.
> 
> The question I think the community may need to address is whether the current criteria set is sufficient, if not, should the community recommend more criteria to nomcom or an AFRINIC member propose hard-coding a requirement into the Bylaw which must then be adhered to by nomcom in addition to their own criteria.
> - It also did not describe the process for determining “rough consensus”.  
> 
> SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining  consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work.
> As a result, we have seen: 
> 
> - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management.  
> 
> - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions.
> 
> SO: This is indeed one of the things Co-Chairs find challenging; the current PDP requires that comments on the list and that of the face 2 face should be the basis for checking consensus to last call. It would indeed be helpful if all comments that comes in on the list are addressed (as much as possible) by the author(s) and it will also be good if people use the mailing list to raise their concerns as much as possible. However that is usually not the case, hence the challenge. While the Co-Chairs moderation may not have been perfect (depending on our individual standards). I think it would also be good to recognise that we are in a very unique community and environment where effective moderation is not just by skills alone but also by Grace ;-)
> 
> - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration
> 
> SO: I am not sure what the above means but I believe "draft policies" always have a consensus status declared at the end of the PPM. Though yes i understand the frustration it could cause if the expectation is different from what the co-chairs declared. That said, I believe that is why we have section 7 of the PDP which can be used to resolve these issues when they arise.
> The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration.  Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes>) and no action from the working group co-chairs. 
> 
> SO: The current PDP "DOES NOT"  permit the co-chairs to discard a proposed policy within 12months of the proposal/edits of such policy, irrespective of whether there is comment or not. However Co-Chairs makes effort to encourage the author(s) to voluntarily withdraw their proposals having observed the community's stand/direction about it. 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3 <http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3>
> 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8 <http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8> 
> 3. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9 <http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9>
> **Some questions for the community and co-chairs**
> 
> - How do we fix issues #3 and #4?    
> 
> - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes?
> 
> -Omo
> 
>  <http:/>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
> Mobile: +2348035233535 <>
> alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
> 
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
> Mobile: +2348035233535 <>
> alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
> 
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161026/a812ffb7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list