[rpd] Co-Chair Election Process

[Paschal Ochang]

Hello Owen,

Please see my comments below in line

On Saturday, July 18, 2020, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> > On Jul 17, 2020, at 1:09 PM, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > +1 Tony.

> >

> > Categorising various participants and members in rpd and mapping them to

> their respective voting privileges will be a good way to start.

>

> Can you please explain to me what these “categories would be?”



Various participants exist in the mailing e.g those who have registered on
rpd and have never dropped a single post, those who have registered and may
have commented just once or twice or thrice, those who had posted in a
particular thread of interest that has not been active for about 2 years
etc.


>

> To the best of my knowledge, there are only two possible categories:

>

>         1.      Eligible to vote in co-chair election.

>         2.      Ineligible to vote in co-chair election.

>

> If there are additional categories in RPD of which I’m unaware, please

> enlighten me as to what those categories are and how one would qualify or

> disqualify for each particular category.




>From my analysis above you can see that your two possible categories has to

factor in the sub categories above I mentioned for consideration.


>

> > I have attended multiple meetings and have networked with people whom

> have never posted on or commented on RPD but have spoken passionately in

> open mic sessions and I was amazed why they have been incognito in mailing

> lists.

>

> Exactly. It is not legitimate to disenfranchise voters simply because they

> have chosen not to post on the mailing list, nor should we reward the most

> frequent bloviators simply on the basis of excessive posting.

>

> > I think where we missed it a little bit may be trying to tie the

> development of a remote or electronic voting system together with a

> proposal. I don't think a proposal must first scale through in order to

> spear head the development of a remote or electronic voting system. This

> should be policy independent IMHO.

>

> There are those who claim that the PDP-Bis proposal solves all the worlds

> problems, including this one. Personally, I think it is a fundamentally

> flawed proposal which creates more problems than it solves, but this is not

> the thread for debating that. I agree that translating the current election

> procedure to a virtual environment can be accomplished without modifying

> the RPD and without accepting the other changes proposed by PDP-bis.

>

> IMHO, the so-called “sleeper cell” effect is a red herring. It is easily

> prevented by choosing a date in the past and determining eligibility to

> vote based on having an email address subscribed to RPD as of said date. By

> doing so, it prevents a mass-registration of email addresses in preparation

> (since subscribing after that point won’t qualify you) and it creates a

> simple basis for admitting people into the voter-eligible meeting room. If

> necessary, a second non-voting conference session could be set up to stream

> the same audio/video and facilitate attendance by those not eligible to vote



Yes I agree with your solution for handling the sleeper cell situation.
However, in doing that one may argue that it leads to a mass
disqualification of voters (those coming late to the party with good
intentions).


>

> Vote could then literally be taken by show of hands (virtually every

> conferencing system supports some variant of the “raised hand” metaphor)

> and it would be almost entirely compliant with the existing PDP. The small

> changes necessary (virtual vs. in-person raised hands) are well within the

> “co-chairs may vary the process as necessary to meet exceptional

> circumstances” clause (paraphrased).

>

> >

> > While we already have limited time we can have a remote meeting and

> discuss everything in the agenda while delaying the election process a

> little bit and thereby extending the tenure of the current seat holders.

>

> I really see no need to delay the election of co-chairs, though I have no

> objection to extending the term of the current co-chairs either. They have

> been doing an admirable job IMHO.

>

> > Hopefully when we adapt to the new normal and can hold a face to face

> meeting  we can hold elections by then and I will get to see and enjoy the

> physical company of our beloved Afrinic community as usual.

>

> I would not be so sure that the new normal will include face to face

> meetings.



Well I guess the new normal won't be only virtual meetings as I think it
translates to living in the era of covid 19 while obeying laid down
regulations for prevention of physical transmission. Therefore I am of the
opinion that an election can be done at the time when lockdown restrictions
are lifted and a physical meeting can take place.




> I hope it does, but it is far from certain at this time.

>

>

> Owen

>

>

>


-- 
Kind regards,

Paschal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/e54b2f3d/attachment.html>