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

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Je vais répondre en Anglais à ce message pour que la traduction ne laisse
pas croire à une attaque personnelle de ma part.



Le dim. 30 août 2020 à 14:34, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a
écrit :


> I did not say such thing about Africa, please don't make up stuff.

>

> I said very clearly elections by consensus are not good anywhere. Why make

> up stuff to support your argument ?

>

> It is exactly the opposite. "Election" by consensus leaves a great margin

> for subjectivity and for fraud while election by vote eliminates any

> subjectivity in the process if the process is auditable.

> This is how it's done in many other places and work as expected, without

> margin for disputes.

> Why have a type of "election" that can only serve for the propose of

> margin for fraud and more disputes than the current ones ?

>

> In my view the only fear of election by vote is from those who may not

> have them.

>


Some people have the votes and can’t express it through the merits of their
candidate on public through the election by consensus?

It is obvious where the fear is. It is with people who think PDPWG cochairs
are Kings and policy makers and must have them.

Thanks
Arnaud


> Fernando

> On 30/08/2020 10:02, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:

>

> La seule personne qui se répète c'est belle et bien toi Fernando. Tu

> semble dire qu'en Afrique on est pas capable de gérer une élection par

> consensus approximatif alors que d'autres régions le font et que c'est

> utopique, c'est un rêve, etc., pour ton information il existe bel et bien

> une forme d'élection qui s'apparente à une élection par consensus

> approximatif merci de suivre le lien suivant :

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting. Tu es le seul à vouloir

> exiger d'aller vers une élection direct, quand on sait tout ce que ça

> comporte moyen d'abus.

>

> Cordialement

>

> Arnaud

>

> Le sam. 29 août 2020 à 17:28, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a

> écrit :

>

>> 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> <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

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

>> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <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> <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

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

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

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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> 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/20200830/01954ab9/attachment-0001.html>