[rpd] Community Feedback

[Wijdane Goubi]

Dear Sunday,

I would like to start by saying that the RPD is thankfully a free
democratic list where everyone is allowed and has the right to openly share
and freely express their opinions and nothing will ever stop me from always
giving my points of view in a detailed, straightforward manner.
As for the “we” pronounce, it was on behalf of some community members,
including me, who have mentioned that the CPM is not as clear as it seems
to be on its face and is way more complicated than it first appears.
Moreover, each member of the community might be approaching things a little
differently which can lead us to unreasonable explanations and unnecessary
opinions. Likewise, some sections of the CPM have been explained from a
certain perspective to align with certain members interests and benefits
and nothing can guarantee that these assumptions are the true meaning of
what was stated in the CPM, as it can be interpreted and misinterpreted in
so many ways.

Regards,
Wijdane.

Le sam. 5 déc. 2020 à 10:26, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com> a écrit :


> Well said Noah.

>

> I sincerely hope that the Co-Chairs will take correction hence. I equally

> appeal to their unpaid advocates to see what the exact issues that need

> attention are, much more above any form of personal attacks that some

> people may deliberately launch, thereby masking the real issues.

>

> We must now focus on issues and ignore those baseless distractions.

>

> Co-Chairs are human, they have better learning algorithms than the best

> AI. Invoke it!

>

> Sunday.

> On 12/5/20 9:52 AM, Noah wrote:

>

>

>

> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, 07:38 ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE, <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

> wrote:

>

>>

>> We thank you for your understanding, cooperation and the continued trust

>> in us

>>

>

> On the contrary, the working group understanding,  cooperation and trust

> in the cochairs is only possible when cochairs dont undermine and disregard

> the WG rules of engagement (PDP) enshrined in the Afrinic CPM.

>

> Not once but twice, the cochairs have attempted to selectively chose what

> policy proposal you wish to advance.

>

> Whether its the controversial resources transfer proposal or now this new

> controversial recall proposal, its the disregard of the policy development

> process that makes members of this working group to fail to understand

> cooperate and trust in your efforts as cochairs.

>

> By the way, there is nothing wrong with the recall proposal. However, its

> we the working group with the mandate to determine its fate through the

> policy development process.

>

> Which is;

>

> 1. Authors submit a draft to the rpd list for consideration.

> 2. Afrinic staff records it and publishes it with an ID.

> 3. The working group then takes it time to discuss the draft proposal.

> 4. In the next PPM, the draft proposal is then added to the PPM Agenda by

> cochairs.

> 5. Its authors presents the proposal to the working group who would engage

> with the authors for more discussions and clarification etc.

> 6.Afrinic staff would then also present their staff impact assessment and

> analysis.

> 7. The cochairs would then based on all the above process determine if the

> draft proposal was attained rough consensus or not.

> 8. If there is rough consensus then cochair would give the WG more time

> during last call for final discussions which may include editorial changes

> etc.

> 9. Otherwise the draft proposal would have to go back to the WG list for

> futher discussion.

> 10. The determination of whether the proposal needs a waiver of the

> working group cochair to invoke section 3.6 due to an emergency would come

> at this stage.

>

> So you can clearly see that the policy development process has its

> timelines and its never rushed because AFRINIC above all, is affected by

> each and every action that is taken through the community bottom up process.

>

> Therefore, when cochairs attempt to invoke section 3.6 while disregarding

> the above laid out process from 1 - 9 and rush to attempt to vary the

> process, is what makes the working group loose trust and fail to cooperate

> as you have seen with all the backlash from various members of this working

> group.

>

> You can indeed claim that there was a call by someone in the working

> group, requesting you to invoke section 3.6. Its indeed within that person

> right to request whatever they want. But its within your wisdom as cochair

> to know better and know the process and inform the said member that what

> they are requesting is impossible since the CPM is clear on how each new

> Draft Policy Proposal is treated as per the PDP.

>

> I shall therefore reiterate that you give respect to the PDP process for

> once and fwiw there is no emergency here but what seems like serious

> confusion and/or lack of understanding in the part of the cochairs and the

> person who called for the process to be disregarded by cochairs.

>

> Whatever we do, always think AFRINIC at the back of your mind. We shall

> not compromise AFRINIC.

>

> Noah

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201205/6e0f1e7f/attachment-0001.html>