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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi all,

 

The full point about this conversation is a wrong starting point, because I don’t think anyone is understanding the context, which is very different.

 

Can someone point where in the RIPE PDP talks about “elections by consensus” *only* ? I live there, I’m a very active participant (in all the 5 RIRs actually), and I tried to find that, as I didn’t recall it, and was not able to.

 

For example:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selection-process

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6/ipv6-wg-chair-selection-process

 

So, the proponents of that, can provide a link that contradicts that?

 

Now, what I recall from *actual practices/happenings* in WG elections in RIPE:
In RIPE we don’t have a single PDP WG, we have one for each topic (anti-abuse, services, addressing, routing, DNS, IoT, connect, cooperation, database, DNS, IPv6, open source, measurements – I think I didn’t forget any of them).
Policy proposals belong to the WG that is more appropriate, except those related to the PDP itself, which belongs to the RIPE community co-chairs (which a different election process that didn’t existed and was developed just a few months ago). Previously the previous chair (a single one) was appointing the new one (if I recall correctly). For example, most of the policy proposal typically belong to the addressing WG, but others go into routing, anti-abuse, services, etc.
EACH WG has 2 or even 3 co-chairs.
In several occasions, I recall a WG having a single candidate for the elections. So, it is done by “acclamation”.
In other occasions there were 2 candidates and it was obvious that one of those got more support, and the other one withdraws by himself or some other folks in the WG asked him/her to do so, so the “most popular” was elected by acclamation.
In other occasions, if I recall correctly, we decided to elect both of them, so we reached 3 (when the WG before had 2).
I don’t recall any WG having got more than 2 candidates, if that happened, we do by means of a ballot. I don’t recall having got into the need to run this for many many many many years (20 maybe?).
 

Now, this system works in RIPE because:
We have the fallback to the paper ballot.
Candidates are not many (because there are many WGs).
This is something that has been developed during decades.
People is not fighting among themselves; they volunteer because they have real interest in contributing to the community, and contributing is not only done being a co-chair, so if you are a candidate and feel that someone else can do a better job, instead of being egoist, you “concede” (which is the latin root of consensus). That means that if somebody else is volunteering as well, you will be mature, gentle and more than happy to withdraw yourself and support the other guy. This is about cooperation.
This also means that most of the WG chairs are often re-elected, because they have the experience to judge consensus and this is very well appreciated by the community. We all make mistakes, but as longer time we are in the position, we learn and make less mistakes. This is similar as in IETF, often co-chairs don’t change very often for many years. And in this case they aren’t elected by the community but instead by the IESG.
I will be happy to support this ASAP this community also can confirm that if there are several cochair candidates they will talk among them and withdraw their candidacy in favor of one of them.
May be the actual candidates could state if they wish to withdraw in favor of a single one of them?
 

*** Reading policies in other regions is often **NOT ENOUGH**. If you’re not active (even more, *very active*) there, you will be misunderstanding it, because is not just about the letter, but also the practices and understanding how the people in the community works there. I think I’ve demonstrated that. I can tell you what are the practices and the *actual* interpretation of the policies in the 5 regions. Not sure if others can say the same.

 

I hope this is useful, specially g above … Let’s see the results, to understand if this can work here.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 29/8/20 15:38, "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <madomey at hotmail.com> escribió:

 

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



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200830/bef2e864/attachment-0001.html>