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

[Gregoire EHOUMI]

> On Aug 29, 2020, at 5:35 AM, Gaby Giner <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Hello, all.

> 

> I am against this policy because I think it adds unnecessary complexity to what should be a relatively simple low-overhead process. It does so in a way that will result in confusion, disagreement, and fractious behavior in the community.

> 


I see that you are following someone's train of thought and you copied his in extenso here as he argued exactly the same recently.

Perhaps if I may, can you explain how this policy adds complexity and how it could lead to what you stated?


> Besides, proposing to pick the next co-chairs on the mailing list based on consensus instead of actual elections at the policy meeting is unnecessary, unfair, and has less transparency than the actual election process that has no flaw in it.

> 


Which election process are you referring to?

How is the actual election process more transparent to what is proposed?

How would it be unfair?

Note: Co-chair roles are voluntary roles where interested members of the working group go out of their way to volunteer their free time to manage the PDP process. 

It seems to me that folks are trying to turn them into political roles where different subjective groups compete for positions of leadership in order to advance their own agenda as is common with most politically motived elections.


Thanks,
—Greg