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

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello

If we are having all this trouble to define the next elections probably 
because there are multiple people interested in the next elections, how 
can we dream about any consensus ?

Consensus is for proposals, for a collaborative improving process that 
may take months or even more than an year, not for electing people.
What is the fear to have a proper vote process ? 1 person 1 vote and the 
candidate with most votes wins and servers the term. What can go wrong ?
When one is elected with most votes and there are no signals of fraud 
there is no room for disputes and discussions.

Qualified people are people who effectively participate in the 
construction of the process, who are truly part of it and have 
commitment to it and not someone who is just passing in front of the 
door once in a lifetime.

Afrinic PDP doesn't even have yet the possibility the Board to appoint 
interim Co-Chairs when necessary.

Fernando

On 28/08/2020 15:16, ALAIN AINA via RPD wrote:

> Hello,

>

> Below are our  responses to  last comments received on list on this proposal.

>

>

> ###### Comment 1

> Elections by consent is not for real world.

> #######

>

> It does work for working groups chairs selection in RIPE region

>

> ##### Comment 2

> It's just something too utopic.

> #######

>

> As  utopic as  how “rough consensus” appear until you experiment it and cherish

>

> ###### Comment3

> Election by vote where qualified people (with minimal requirements) vote and the candidate with the highest votes win, works in most places in the world with less margin  for further disputes

> ######

>

> there are many models of elections with different ways of qualifying voters, determining the winners, etc....

> What you described is just one the them. Not one fits all.

>

> Each  region adopts the best model for its PDP and how chairs/lead for the PDP activities are selected.

> https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/rir-comparison-table/

>

> One can see for example that in the case of LACNIC where, there is an electronic votes by those subscribed to the policy mailing list, the elections results “must” be ratified by consensus among those present  at the PPM as judged by the acting chairs. If results can’t be rectified, board appoint an interim chair.

>

> The AFRINIC PDPWG adopted in the past  the model of  votes by those physical present at the PPM, until it showed its limit recently.

>

> Can you please elaborate on how the “qualified people” should be selected in the context the PDPWG for the online voting and how to prevent abuse and further disputes?

>

>

> HTH

>

> —Alain

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd