[rpd] Co-Chair Election Process

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 7:35 PM, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Hello Owen,

> 

> Please see my comments below in line

> 

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

> 

> 

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


None of which should matter in terms of voting or not voting in the chair election, IMHO.

As such, I see no need to (and a few reasons not to) categorize this way.


> 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. 


No, I don’t think so. I think that is a very very bad idea.


> > 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). 


I’m not so sure about your characterization of “mass disqualification”. How many people do you think have subscribed to this list since June 18? If it is “mass”, then I am fine with any date prior to the announcement that this solution has been adopted.

It has to be a date before the announcement to avoid mass registration by “sleeper cells” in an effort to circumvent this process.


> 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.


You have greater confidence than I that such a thing will be possible within any reasonable time frame.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200720/8d68bd2f/attachment-0001.html>