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

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Hi Jordi,

I did not miss any text... I was pointing to the election by consensus
part  of the process and I have put the text I quoted  starting and ending
with dot lines, which means there are text before and after... anyone is
free to read as I also provided the URL....

What you describe as how things end up for many WG in RIPE region,
complies  with the appointment process with only one candidate.

This happens often when the WG is well organized, key and active
participants are known and so chairs are easily selected among those who
present the profile needed at each stage.

Thanks

Arnaud

Le lun. 31 août 2020 à 08:58, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :


> Hi Arnaud,

>

>

>

> However, you are still missing this text:

>

>

>

> “If no consensus can be reached then a secret ballot to elect the new

> chair(s) will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically

> present at the session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes will be

> counted by RIPE NCC Staff, and the result will be determined using

> proportional representation through the single transferable vote, otherwise

> known as PR-STV. The winner(s) of the secret ballot will become the new

> chair(s).”

>

>

>

> So, if other people in this list don’t read the full text, they can have

> the idea that is “only” done by consensus.

>

>

>

> Again, the important point here is that the context is **very**

> different. In RIPE WGs, we didn’t need to do a voting because when there

> were **several** candidates (very few occasions, because there are many

> WGs, so the candidates are split among them), and before that happening,

> candidates will withdraw in favor of others, so only **a single**

> candidate remain, and this, there is no need for “consensus” it is just

> “elected by acclamation”.

>

>

>

> For that, we **don’t** need to change the procedure here. We just need

> that the actual candidates decide among them which one remains and all the

> other ones withdraw. Then the voting is not needed.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 30/8/20 23:42, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

>

>

> Le dim. 30 août 2020 à 18:15, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <

> rpd at afrinic.net> a écrit :

>

> Hi all,

>

>  .

>

> ...

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> Nobody says RIPE PDP talks about “elections by consensus” **only**. And

> not interested in self praise.

>

>

>

> There was a specific argument which made folks to point  to “elections by

> consensus” being used  by some WGs in RIPE region.

>

>

>

> The example of the Address Policy WG can be seen here:

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> It reads:

>

>

>

> “.........

>

> The working group will select new chair(s) at the RIPE Address *Policy

> Working Group* session. Those present at the session, either in person or

> remotely, *will determine by consensus among themselves who takes the

> available position(s)*. The remaining chair will determine whether

> *consensus* has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a

> chair the RIPE chair will determine *consensus*.

>

> ...............”

>

>

>

> Working Group practices including the selection of Co-Chairs are in WG

> operations’ guidelines and not in the PDP.

>

>

>

> Thanks,

>

>

>

> Arnaud

>

> ...

>

>

>

>

> **********************************************

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200901/332dc04c/attachment.html>