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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Arnaud,

 

Exactly you said it!

 

That’s way you should read the full WG elections text, and not just the 1st paragraph.

 

Context is different and even if you read the full text, but you aren’t active participant there, you will not see how the community works there.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 1/9/20 10:40, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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



**********************************************
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/20200901/687d6fd9/attachment-0001.html>