[rpd] Policy Development Process and Elections

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 15:26 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> On 14/08/2020 18:37, Benjamin Investor wrote:

>> <clip>

>>  I believe the community needs to find a permanent solution if we have a problem, but my humble question to you and the board is that the people that have joined the mailing list in the last six month are they not stakeholders in this community? Even if they have joined to vote as you and the board are suggesting are they still not stakeholders. And according to the rpm "anyone" can contribute and at any time. What makes the person who joined 6 years ago more and has never said a word more qualified than the person who joined 6 days ago? Yes, I think there is a problem there but it is not for you or the board to solve this problem as rightly mentioned by Jordi.  What problem are you trying to solve with the 6 months and other rules set? During the next election, next year are we going to have an 18 months rule?. who says that we would be able to have a face to face meeting next year even if we have a face to face meeting how do we prevent hairdressers from coming in to vote? Or are we going to be changing the process all the time? is that a fair way of dealing with the issue.  Let us be realistic here. is your intention genuine or are we acting a script? Yes, Jordi has a policy proposal but what assurance do we have that the proposal would pass and be implemented before next year.  As far as I am concerned, we need to follow the rules in whatever we do fI not we have giving room for anarchy. The rule you are trying here is divisive and as seen it was rejected by a sizable number of people even thou it might be questionable but we say responses  If we agree to use this rule this time what stops the board from interfering in future elections. We are not looking at the future implication we are only trying to solve a short term problem and leaving behind a long term problem. The problem at hand must be solved by the community using the laid down process and not imposed by the CEO or the board. 

> Not all that joined should necessarily be considered stakeholders. This is crystal clear and there must be something that guarantee that only those who are really involved are the ones able to participate on the decision. Having something like what happened in Kampala is not something to the whole community.


What happened in Kampala that you find so objectionable? We have two co-chairs that were elected there and have been doing a generally excellent job.

They have been transparent in their communication and fair in their administration of the policy development process.

Are you objecting to the outcome, or do you have some belief that some of the younger stakeholders (mostly IT students) who showed up should have been disenfranchised?

Please be clear in what, exactly, you mean by “what happened in Kampala”. I was there and while the board election process was a gross display of incompetence and mismanagement, I really don’t take issue with the outcome of the PDP election. If you mean the extent to which the theatrics leading up to the voting were mismanaged and the process manipulation and machinations, then I agree such should not be tolerated again, but I think migrating those to the virtual meeting environment would be an interesting challenge to begin with. Those tactics simply don’t really translate to a virtual meeting.

I do agree that the anomalous level of list subscriptions in July makes a valid case for a June cutoff to avoid a possible attempt at organizational capture.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200815/efd2620c/attachment.html>