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

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

Omo Oaiya Omo.Oaiya at
Thu Oct 27 21:57:44 UTC 2016

On 27 Oct 2016, at 01:09, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> This is a false dichotomy. One can attempt to identify and assist the community in arriving at a point of possible consensus while remaining neutral and accepting input from the community as to which direction leads towards that point.
>> The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair’s to start driving towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair’s becomes a moot point.  I don’t think we want to be in that situation personally.
> If we allow the co-chairs to lose their neutrality and start driving the direction of consensus, you are completely correct. However, if we ask the co-chairs to help try to understand the direction of the community and offer alternatives seeking greater consensus, I think that is exactly what they should be doing.

It is pretty obvious that Serge meant for Co-chairs to "drive the process to consensus" in the same way as Alan intended with ‘"guide the discussion to consensus”  or if you like, your “offer alternatives seeking greater consensus”

Many thanks to SM for the forthright responses and references to the archives. I found them very useful as well as Alain’s reminder that the PDP was in part adapted from RFC2026.

No one should find it productive to have endless repetitive discussion on obscure points.  We can stop this with better moderation and consensus calling from the Co-chairs. I hope the exchanges have also been meaningful for them as I believe they genuinely didn’t realise there were any shortages in PDWG administration.

Perhaps it is the Co-Chairs responsibilities in <> we need to add text to rather than the PDP itself.   In any case, I recommend reviewing the suggested RFCs and acting as guided to deal with issues #3 and #4.

As next steps and preparation for AFRINIC-25,  I will work with co-authors to present an update on our proposal taking in the latest comments.  It should be a good opportunity to test our new found awareness of the “rules" of the process.

Many thanks to all for the inputs.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list