[rpd] Community Feedback

[Andrew Alston]

Just as a random note…

As a general rule – by the definition of rough consensus – if there are two proposals that are in conflict at the same time – neither can progress.

The definition of rough consensus states that all substantive issues have been addressed – if not necessarily resolved.  If there are issues serious enough to warrant 2 competing proposals that cannot be brought together, the proposals should defeat consensus in and of themselves.

Remember, consensus is not a numbers game, it is not about votes, it is about the fact that the authors of the proposal have looked at each and every objection, addressed it, not necessarily resolved it, and that the community as a whole feels that the objections have been addressed to the point of rendering them less substantive than the passage of the policy itself.  The very fact that two policies continue to stand says this has not happened.

Andrew



From: Wijdane Goubi <goubi.wijdane at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 4 December 2020 23:58
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Community Feedback

Hello,

I totally do not understand how defending oneself while being accused of some serious accusations can be seen as threats. Additionally, the co-chairs have the total right to prevent unjustified personal attacks through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting warnings.

Regarding what type of job the co-chairs have, YES it is voluntary, whether we like it or not, and they are not getting enough credits for what they do. Moreover, just because the co-chairs decisions do not align with some people’s interests does not mean that their task isn’t held in a high esteem.

Admittedly, the CPM seems to be simple on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations, such as the section 3.5 which states that “The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the justification for the recall and determine the outcome”, in this case we can’t decide what exactly was meant by the outcome and we can’t determine whether it means the co-chairs should be removed or if the request should move forward.

As for the « AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy », trying to prove a point by comparing two incomparable situations is neither functional nor fits in this context. The last draft policy proposal had another competing proposal that was already in the last call, in addition, the co-chairs were waiting for the analysis/advice on how to handle and proceed with the proposal, that being said, they were not purposely delaying the procedure. Whereas, this ongoing recall besides the fact of it being problematic and based ,as mentioned so many times, on biased and subjective opinions, its proponents are ,for the most part, people who have aggressively opposed the last policy proposal.

Cheers,
Wijdane.

Le ven. 4 déc. 2020 à 15:08, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :
Abdulkarim,

You deliberately delayed the procedure for the proposal "AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy Version 1.0"

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011943.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011943.html>

You actually wrote to this working group stating that a competing proposal was already in the last call, and you wanted to reduce community burnout.

While there is an ongoing co-chairs recall request, you are keen and excited about making a decision on whether or not to fast track a new proposal on Co-Chair Recall, ignoring the calls to withdraw the proposal and the related discussions.

Don't you see a double standard on your part when it comes to how you handle proposals submitted to the WG?

Regards,
Gregoire



On Dec 1, 2020, at 11:29 PM, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote:

Dear PDWG Members,
We want to acknowledge the proposal on Co-Chair Recall process and the call for us to invoke section 3.6 of the CPM given the lack of clarity of the current section on the recall process.
We note that a few have accused of not taking over similar discussions in the past and regarded it as gross misconduct.
 We hope the Community would, in the next few days give us a clear direction as to which way to go. We hope to feed the Community back on our decisions by Saturday 5th December 2020.
We thank you for your understanding, cooperation and the continued trust in us.
Thanks
Co-Chairs
PDWG




Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<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<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201207/4a6a6c4a/attachment-0001.html>