[rpd] Potential policy proposal - impeachment as part of appeal?

[Timothy Ola Akinfenwa]

Andrew, comments inline

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:17 AM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> Before I put this into a formal policy proposal, I would like to discuss
> on the list to get views and see if it is possible to find common ground on
> something so that if there is common ground, the policy written  can be
> done so in the correct manner.  If the indication of general support for
> what I will propose below seems to be here, then I will also issue a
> general invite to anyone who wishes to co-author with me on this policy.
>
>
>
> Basically – I was looking at the appeal process, and the grounds on which
> an appeal can realistically be made and upheld.  The appeal process
> surrounds decisions made by the PDP co-chairs.  The PDP co-chairs
> effectively make two decisions –
>
>
>
>    1. Was their consensus to push a policy to last call
>    2. Was their consensus to move a policy out of last call and recommend
>    its ratification.
>
>
>
> While it is possible to appeal a decision NOT to move a policy through
> (where the chairs have declared no-consensus existed), it is almost
> impossible for such an appeal to be upheld – since an appellant would have
> to prove that there had been no objections had remained entirely
> unaddressed by the authors since the inception of the policy – and if an
> appeal such as this DID succeed – then the policy I have in mind becomes
> even more relevant – because it is almost unfathomable that in the face of
> unanimous support with no dissent a policy does not move forward.
>
>
>
> In the other case, the decision involves moving a policy forward to the
> subsequent stage – and a gauge of consensus.  The globally accepted
> consensus definition is pretty simple – consensus is reached when no
> substantive objections still exist that have remained unaddressed by the
> proposers of the policy.  That is to say – every objection does not need to
> be necessarily resolved – but it must be at minimum addressed and there
> must be a record of the response showing that the objection has indeed been
> addressed by the authors of the proposal.
>
I agree!

>
>
> I would argue that a co-chair should **NEVER** be in a position where
> they are overturned on appeal based on this – it is the duty of the
> co-chair to note the objections to a policy and to judge if each objection
> has been addressed by the authors – and if any substantive objection
> remains sustained and unaddressed – quite simply the policy cannot move
> forward.  While it is on the far realms of possibility that a co-chair new
> to the job could err, and get overturned once, it is totally beyond the
> realm of understanding that a co-chair err’s in this manner more than once
> – and demonstrates a total disregard for the process, the definition of
> consensus or both.  As such, any co-chair that is involved in more than two
> appeals that are upheld has demonstrated themselves unfit to remain in the
> co-chair seat and should be automatically impeached and removed, and become
> ineligible to hold the co-chair seat for a minimum of a period of time
> which can be debated.
>
I don't think this is necessary. Co-chairs are humans, not robots. Remember
they are volunteers too. "Impeachment" is really a strong word to use in
this case.

>
>
> Therefore – this is the policy I am considering proposing – in the event
> of any co-chair being overturned on a decision relating to moving policy
> forward from proposal to last call, or from last call to final approval
> before board ratification, shall be automatically removed from their
> position and be ineligible to run again for PDP co-chair for a period of X
> years (I propose 5, lets debate this).
>
Too harsh in my opinion.

>
>
> Now, I would like to hear from this list thoughts regarding this – and if
> there are people out there that would support such a proposal.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181204/f8b63e1e/attachment.html>