[rpd] Community Feedback

[Sunday Folayan]

Dear Wijdane,

I guess you are right. Everyone can pretty-well keep repeating their own 
lines, without seeking consensus, and chaos can continue to reign.

I got your point now.

Enjoy your weekend.

Sunday.

On 12/5/20 5:04 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:

> 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 

> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 list

>>     RPD at afrinic.net  <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>     _______________________________________________

>     RPD mailing list

>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201205/40dba855/attachment.html>