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

[Noah]

Hi Owen
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 5:46 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

> > No. The consensus is built by the WG and not by co-chairs who just lead

> and facilitate the process to it.

> > You keep exaggerating cochairs role in the consensus process  which I

> find inappropriate.

>

> I did not say that the consensus is built by the co-chair, I said that the

> remaining co-chair decides whether or not it has been achieved which is

> what is specified in the proposal as I read it. As such, I do not believe I

> have exaggerated anything, rather I believe you have misinterpreted my

> words (which I find an understandable human error without feeling the need

> to accuse you of malice in doing so).

>


Thank you for the clarification and noted. Now I have understood you.



> > Even if that was the case, having  2 cochairs deciding whether consensus

> has been reached or not could also be subjective... we may need to create a

> “college of cochairs.” or move close to something you are used to.

>

> Yes… Co-chairs deciding consensus can be subjective as was proven in a

> recent successful appeal of co-chairs decision and another recent case

> where co-chairs reversed themselves rendering the pending appeal moot.

>

> Subjectivity in the policy development process has enough other checks and

> balances (appeal committee, board ratification, etc.) that I am comfortable

> with the level of subjectivity that can creep in there.

>


In this case, the subjectivity is checked by the working group since the
selection is done by the working group and the remaining co-chairs only
role is to manage the process.  Think of it this way, a number of folk
would like to volunteer as co-chairs and the working group which is the
selection group listens to each of them and then through humming or show of
hands, the working group selects the most prefered candidate.

The remaining co-chairs role in the above process is to only manage the
process because someone has to manage or lead the process so that the
working group objectively through consensus selects the winner.




>

> However, applying that same subjectivity to an election process with no

> possibility of appeal, no board ratification, no checks or balances

> whatsoever is fraught with problems IMNSHO. To be clear, I am not advocating

> for adding the overhead of an appeals process, board ratification, etc. to

> the co-chair election process. However, I do think that the lack of them

> makes this a very different animal from determining consensus on a policy

> proposal.

>


The proposal clearly states and outlines the selection process which is
that, when the working group can't select its co-chair objectively through
consensus, then a secret ballot is organized which takes into consideration
ranked based choice otherwise the chairman of the board engages the working
group to select a volunteer  co-chair.  Is this not checks and balances?



> > Discussions about who is best candidate to serve as cochair is far

> easier than discussing policies with the complexity it has some times.

>

> Even if I agreed with you (and I do to some extent, but not entirely),

> this really has little relevance to the issues with deciding a co-chair

> election based on the remaining co-chair’s opinion of whether or not

> consensus has been reached.

>


But Owen, the remaining co-chairs role is only to* lead the process as an
observer* since the selection itself is not done by that co-chair but by
the entire working group through say raising of hands or humming.



> > In all cases, if consensus can’t be reached, there is  a fallback

> scenario.

>

> Yes, but there is no protection for the scenario where consensus is not

> reached, but the existing co-chair declares consensus in spite of that fact.

>


The proposal allows for a secret ballot through ranked choice voting in
case consensus by show of hands or humming is not reached.



> > Selection of cochairs in AFRINIC was simple and easy until recently...

>

> And it likely will be again. The core issue here is a restoration of trust

> in the processes and process leaders at AfriNIC. This proposal will not

> accomplish that.

>


Have faith Owen, like I have stated, we have selected co-chairs in the past
through consensus and this is a fact.

Instead it creates further opportunities for inappropriate manipulation of

> the process and even greater distrust.

>


How so?



> What we’ve seen recently is abuse of the lack of detail on how to select

> cochairs as the PDP just has the following

> > ——

> > The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public

> Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year term

> > ——

> > The WG was able to manage this swiftly until recently.

>

> We can agree to disagree. What I believe we have seen recently is a

> symptom of a greater problem of distrust and mistrust of both systems and

> people. These issues of trust and of a fractured and fractious community

> must be addressed and this proposal will, IMHO, only exacerbate them.

>


This does not stop the working group that is physically participating in a
selection to fail to select from a number of volunteers a co-chair.




> > What we are doing through this proposal is to fix these loopholes.

>

> Again, I disagree. What you are doing with this proposal is creating

> different opportunities for abuse in the process



Explain how.

and allowing that abuse to be committed by a smaller number of individuals

> with greater effect.



You mean the working group and its co-chair, or the secret ballot system or
the board chair? Be a specific chief.

This will further erode public trust in the process and exacerbate the real

> problems that we are seeing.

>


You are exaggerating Owen.



> > Traditional voting is to be avoided as much as possible in this context

> of the PDPWG. This WG’s first choice in decision making  is consensus.

>

> That particular method applies ONLY to policy development at this time and

> expanding it to co-chair elections is a move towards increased dysfunction,

> not a solution.

>


Yet it has been done before in the past. Yet the proposal also provides for
ranked based voting. I fail to see the dysfunction you refer to when the
process is clear as select by consensus and if that fails, then select by
secret ballot and only ask the chair of the board to select a temporary
volunteer when the first two methods fail.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/12d4b038/attachment-0001.html>