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

[Fernando Frediani]

You must be joking with it or trying to make tricks and I am having a 
serious discussion.


I already answered your question very clearly in the previous message 
very clearly. If you wish to discuss it in a serious way please go 
straight to the point.


Fernando


On 29/08/2020 14:21, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:

> Hi Fernando,

>

> Let me not get involve at this stage in the discussions about which 

> model of election is good or bad for the PDPWG.

>

> You have not answered my question. I am posting it again.

>

> I would like to find out whether you agree that the election by 

> consent is used by working groups in RIPE region?

>

> Please do justice to it.

>

> Thanks

>

>

> Marcus

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> *From:* Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2020 2:29 PM

> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) 

> Guidelines and Procedures

>

> Seems the authors are actually repeating the same arguments and points.

> I am instead putting the many reasons election by consensus is not 

> feasible, specially in this scenario we are going through currently.

>

> What doubt you have about this position regardless the RIR or region ? 

> Perhaps you should read the messages again.

>

>

> Fernando

>

>

> On 29/08/2020 10:31, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:

>> Hi Fernando,

>>

>> Thank you for your reaction but it appears you are not discussing but 

>> repeating yourself with no value add.

>>

>> I would like to find out whether you agree that the election by 

>> consent is used by working groups in RIPE region?

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>>

>>

>> Marcus

>>

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 

>> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>

>> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2020 7:26 PM

>> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net> 

>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>

>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) 

>> Guidelines and Procedures

>> 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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200829/8f213974/attachment-0001.html>