[rpd] Larus Foundation and Afrinic PDP

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 15:44 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Lire à traves les lignes mes réponses,

> 

> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 22:03, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :

> You again claim that the message:

> 

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009734.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009734.html>

> 

> Is evidence of the bias of Larus educational materials provided to fellows for the Kampala meeting.

> 

> However, the message is not evidence, it is an accusation.

> 

> Ce n'est pas une accusation c'est un constat. 

>  

> 

> The educational materials in question:

> 

> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg>

> 

> Are prepared quite neutral and not intended to condition anyone to any particular policy position, but rather to provide a brief summary of the proposal and

> the debate up to the point when the materials were prepared.

> 

> Je suis désolé encore dire que ça c'est une contre-vérité, les documents conçus comportait tout sauf des données neutres, nous observons des commentaires dans des textes qui sont sensés être rapporté tel qu'écrit par les auteurs, c'est un acte tendancieux. 

>  


I will leave the matter of whether it is an accusation or an observation to the community…

As a general rule, statements such as 

> The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views of Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions on the proposals. 

> 

> 

> 

> The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants views on the proposals and their contributions at the PPM and after….

Certainly seem accusatory in nature from my point of view.


> 

> If you believe there are inaccuracies or bias, please point them out. I know that there was one person who pointed out that they had been misquoted (though

> not in a way that significantly altered the meaning of their comments) and we apologized for the error (it was an error, not a deliberate act).

> 

> Si je prends en comptes simplement les commentaires relatifs aux  Pros et Cons indiqués dans les documents, la partie Cons ne comportait que plains d'opinions et commentaires de ceux qui sont contre les propositions de politique cela n'a absolument rien de neutre et n'est absolument pas objectif. De plus certains propos n'ont pas été rapportés comme leurs auteurs les ont présentés, ils ont été biaisés ….


One of us is confused here… The pros section also contained only comments from those who were in support of the policy.

That is the nature of “pro” and “con”. Those who support a given policy are “pro” and those who are against it are “con”.

In order to not be neutral, we would have to list only pros or only cons on a policy.

Perhaps this particular idiosyncrasy in English does not translate well into French? Perhaps there is a different problem in the communication. Nonetheless, by listing commentes in favor of the policy as pro and listing the comments opposed to the policy as con, we were merely sorting for clarity. No attempt at deception or partiality, just labels.


> While it is true that the summary content from the mailing list was curated for brevity, we did make every effort to capture useful comments from both sides.

> 

> 

> Là aussi la capture a été orientée, donc pas du tout neutre …


I am not sure what you mean by “the capture was oriented”. We tried to make sure that the number of comments captured on each side roughly reflected the fraction of comments from each side and we chose comments based not on support of any particular position, but on the effectiveness with which the comments expressed the intended view. Any comments we discarded were either repetitious of comments contained in the summary or were off-topic or difficult to parse or understand.
 

> If I recall correctly, there was a later message in which Larus provided a clean copy of the materials, but I’m not easily finding it at the moment. (The scanned

> copy is rather badly scanned and nearly illegible in some areas.)

> 

> Désolé mais de la même façon que tu as dit que les preuves fournies ne sont pas recela de même je peux dire que rien ne nous dit que ce document qui serait présenté plus tard serait l'original utilisé avec les boursiers lors de leur formation.  


You are free to compare it to the poorly scanned copy. It was not edited or abridged, it was published in an effort to provide clarity.

You claim you are making observations and not accusations, yet you continue to express suspicion, doubt, and act as if a crime was committed in each and every communication.

The document was not “private” and did not contain any information that was not already public. As soon as the broader community expressed interest in its content, it was published to said same community.

There is clear bias in this conversation, but it is not mine.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200219/3364f9ef/attachment.html>