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

[ALAIN AINA]

Hello,

Below are authors' reflections  to the comments received on the proposal in the past days. 

===
issue1: The proposed cochair appointment process adds unnecessary complexity and may result in confusion, disagreement, and fractious behaviour in the community.
====

To address the problem of selection of co-chair for the WG open to anyone to join and participate with “no formal membership”, the proposed appointment process is as follow:
 ⁃ 1) Get the WG to use its normal decision making mechanism to agree on the best candidate to serve on the administrative role as co-chair.
 ⁃ 2) If 1) fails, organise a preferential vote for those physically present to select the co-chair 
 ⁃ 3) if 2) can’t be done, keep the seat vacant and get the chairman to appoint an interim co-chair
How is this process complex and confusing for a WG which is used to a strict process that guides the policy development?

How is the current voting system which is creating all kind of tension, frustration and endless discussions any better?

====
Issue2: Consensus approach not suitable for selecting people and not compatible with deadlines.
=====

The PDP requires  that a proposal be discussed for 30 days and then get presented at the next PPM for adoption by consensus.

The  proposed “co-chair selection process by consensus” requires that candidates are known 30 days before the PPM and therefore also gives the WG 30 days to conduct the process with the final decision made at the PPM.

The selection by consensus approach is nothing more than “elections by consent”, where people nominate themselves or others and present reasons to support their choice.  After discussion, people change their nominations, and then allows the discussion leader to suggest the election of the person for whom there are strongest arguments.
If there are new and major objections, there is further discussion.

======
Issue3:   Co-chair role is so important as it impacts the WG decisions and policies developed,  and so better get the full board to appoint interim co-chair
=====

Section 3.3 of the CPM is clear on co-chair role:

“The Policy Development Working Group has two chairs to perform its administrative functions.”

Co-chairs perform administrative role in leading the WG  through the PDP.

The PDP has the conflict resolution provisions, in case someone feels that the co-chairs made a wrong or were biased in their decision. 

It also has mechanisms for recalling co-chairs. 

Also proposals pushed forward get reviewed by the board before their ratification.

The process seems well balanced. Let us not exaggerate the co-chair role by making the role presidential or some kings.

Co-chair appointment goes more towards a wider acceptance by the WG than acceptance or endorsement by a full board.

Also, the board chairman’s entitlement to appoint interim co-chair does not prescribe how he makes the appointment.

In the general, without a clear and well defined voting membership  and when voting is not desirable, alternative mechanisms should be used. What we have proposed is workable and suitable for the context. Another option could be to borrow from the IETF, the public verifiable NomCom random selection to select co-chair...

Let us keep this simple.

HTH

—Alain