[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 3, 2020, at 12:44 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> Dear Fernando and WG

> 

> (There has been only one comment so far and so we will address the points made by Fernando in this periodic update from authors).

> 

> Please can we present arguments without proclaiming “I oppose” or  “I support”!.


Can being an ability question, I suppose the answer is yes, we can. However, just because we can do a thing does not mean that we
should do a thing and this is one thing that, IMHO, we should not do.

For the record, I oppose this policy. I believe that this is a case where the proposed cure is worse than the disease. It adds unnecessary
complexity to what should be a relatively simple low-overhead process and it does so in a way that will result in confusion, disagreement,
and fractious behavior in the community.


> The working group debates and then tries to converge towards adoption of policy by consensus. Isn’t it?


Actually, the working group debates and discusses policies and considers options towards gaining consensus around a policy proposal. That is true.

However, what is implied in your statement is that consensus is always intended to eventually adopt some modified version of the proposal at hand.

It is equally valid to come to the consensus that the policy proposal is a gift from the bad-idea fairy and should be rejected.

It is entirely valid to express support or opposition to the concept behind a policy proposal and/or the methods proposed to address that concept.
It is perfectly valid to state that the problem statement in the proposal does not represent a problem that should be solved by this community or
to state that the proposed method of addressing the problem fails to do so or does so in an undesirable way.

The merits (and lack thereof) of a policy proposal should be able to be openly discussed in this group and it would be dysfunctional in the extreme
if that discussion did not include expressions of support or dissent for the proposal, ideally indicating whether the dissent is on the conceptual
intent of the proposal or specific elements of the proposal itself and why.


> You seem to insinuate and repeat the well spread idea that the working group consensus is made by the co-chairs. Co-chairs just oversee the process by which the working group derives its consensus.


The consensus is not made by the co-chairs. Consensus is achieved in the working group when there is an absence of sustained and significant dissent.

The co-chairs should not manufacture consensus (or even attempt to do so), but should observe whether the community has developed consensus or not.


> Co-chairs selection which is based on merit with broad acceptance of the working group can be done via consensus and not rely on random “community” voting.


I’m not sure how the term “random” is applied here. It seems nonsensical to me.

Consensus is great in an environment where the status quo can be retained until such time as new consensus is achieved.

The co-chair elections have a time-certain deadline (at least in theory). A consensus process does not tend to be compatible with a deadline.

If you attempt to elect co-chairs by consensus and get a 35/40/25 split among 3 candidates, what do you do next? Do you hold the meeting open until
two of the factions decrease to a point that allows the last faction standing the win?

Absent that, I think that an election process for the co-chairs makes far more sense than appointment by consensus.

I submit that turning the co-chair election into an endurance contest among the various factions would be divisive and harmful
and very unlikely to yield a result which is superior to the result of an election.


> After all that was said above, the proposed co-chair appointment procedure  favors consensus, but allows “voting”.

> 

> If for some reasons, consensus can’t  be reached, then a consensus-oriented secret ballot voting is organized. Voters are called to indicate the preferential order of “can live with” each candidate.


While I am a fan of ranked-choice voting, I do not like that alternative to a simple show of hands straight vote in this context.


> As for the “Board Chair” vs “full board” appointing an interim co-chair, do we really need to involve the entire board in the appointment of an interim co-chair? Doesn't the Chair embody the board enough to make this appointment, especially at its discretion when no method is imposed on him?


If you are going to pursue this approach, then, yes, it is important for the following reasons:

	1.	The co-chair / board chair have a role in serving as a check-and-balance against
		each other in the policy process.

	2.	Given current levels of trust, vesting power in smaller numbers of individuals
		is contrary to the process of regaining community trust.

	3.	Historically, it has been repeatedly clear that the chair may well have his/her
		own agenda quite independent of the majority of the board.


> Do we have to engage the full board which is also involved in handling the co-chairs recalls in this appointment?


Yes.

Owen