Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Feb 9 12:02:14 UTC 2021
To be honest, I don’t think it is possible to “share” the workload, so more people doesn’t resolve the problem, because each of the co-chairs, should follow all the discussion. This is part of the consensus definition and I consequently disagree that “more than 2” in this case is a benefit. Because that also means that experienced people will NOT participate in the discussions, so it is a trade-off not acceptable in my perspective.
We have also the problem, with your list, that some of them may be in Committees (example AC), or involved in policy proposals under discussion and if we want them to be really neutral, it should be people that *hasn’t participated in those proposals* discussions. Someone could think “let’s get opt to withdraw from those policy proposals …. Come on!, they have already worked in them, and as humans, it is not 100% safe to believe that they will be objective” (even if some of the names can be good for my own proposal case, because they supported them one way or another – I’m trying to be honest and transparent here).
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/2/21 12:51, "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at forum.org.ng> escribió:
Errrm, thanks for the vote of confidence, Jordi but I don't think I have enough bandwidth at this time. Maybe a larger steering group with more past co-chairs so that the workload isn't so much on any one person? Yes, we absolutely should salute the co-chairs even when there are errors in judgement. It's not an easy role.
Removing former CEOs and current board members, the ex co-chair pool (according to https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group ) looks like this:
Vincent Ngundi
Hytham El Nakhal
Paulos Nyirenda
Tim McGinnis
Emile Milandou
Adam Nelson
Barry Macharia
Sami Salih
Alain Aina seems to be a reasonable addition given that he has contributed and continues to contribute actively to policy development. We could also call for volunteers.
This is an interesting situation indeed because at the end of all this "speculation", someone has to decide on what next (and regardless of whom it is, someone is going to disagree regarding their standing... Example "board must not interfere with PDP", "legal counsel is not legal counsel to the PDWG", etc). Time for us all to be grown up, it would appear.
Regards,
Dewole.
On 2/9/2021 12:05 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
This is why I suggested:
> 4) Instead of looking for a temporary replacement, asking the board to organize elections in a maximum of 4-6 weeks, using the same procedure that was prepared for the last time and using the same electoral census.
I still believe that it will be good a transition period with previous chairs that have *real and proven experience*.
For example, Dewole and Alan, would you accept to be nominated for that transition period (6-12 months I’m guessing)?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/2/21 10:54, "Dewole Ajao via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
The proposed election process may have been workable if we did not already have contention over an unusual/unexplained surge in mailing list registrations a couple of moons ago. Setting a cut off date before that surge then cuts off some real humans that joined the mailing list after the surge. What to do?
Dewole.
On 2/9/2021 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The co-chair model is by far the more common model among all the RIRs.
However, there is one exception and I will say that in its region, it has served the community rather well throughout the history of that RIR.
It’s also the region where I have the greatest familiarity, now being in my 14th year of service in that body.
In our region, we have 15 members and they come from diverse segments of the community (cloud providers, large ISPs, small ISPs, individuals, and more).
Being that I have been involved for so long in that process at such a deep level, my view may be somewhat biased, but if the PDWG wishes to pursue a transition towards an Advisory Council structure instead of just 2 co-chairs, I’m happy to contribute my knowledge and experience to that process.
However, this should not be the immediate fix to the current situation.
The current situation should be resolved in the most efficient possible way to achieve a fair and open election from the existing participants in the community.
Lacking co-chairs to lead the process, I think it should probably fall to the election committee to manage the election process. I propose that:
1. EC set a date (in the past) at which time you must have been a member of the RPD
list in order to vote. This should prevent any room stacking and allay any fears of room-stacking.
2. EC sets a date (~10-14 days out) when nominations open. Anyone eligible person wishing to serve may
self-nominate or be nominated by another. EC should collect and validate all such
nominations. All validated nominees should be placed on a slate. Nominations should
run for 1 week from the opening date.
3. Each candidate should be able to submit a video and written statement to be posted on the
AfriNIC web site at the same time as the slate is announced.
4. Two weeks after announcement of the slate, voting should commence and run for 1 week.
Each member should make a ranked-choice vote of 1 or more candidates to hold the office.
If you aren’t familiar with ranked-choice voting, https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)
provides good detail.
Essentially, the votes are counted in consecutive rounds, starting with everyone’s first choice.
The candidate receiving the lowest percentage vote in each round is eliminated and their votes
are transferred to the next choice of each voter who had contributed to their total votes.
In this case, since we are electing two co-chairs, once the first candidate reaches a ≥50%
majority in the ranked-choices, they should be selected to serve out the longer term and
the next-highest ranked candidate should be selected to serve out the shorter term.
Even this process will take time, but I think we should have a deliberate process and a proper election
for the fairness of all.
Owen
On Feb 9, 2021, at 00:16 , Dewole Ajao via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
Actually there is no king in the PDP, fortunately or unfortunately. Hopefully though, the market will be coordinated as best possible using the untested rules we have to work with in this case.
My take:
PDP (section 3.5) says a co-chair may be recalled (with request and justification sent to the board of directors); Logically, the recall process ends in either recall of the co-chair or continuation of his/her term. That's all that the conflict resolution section states and as such we will have to go to another part of the PDP that makes mention of a truncated co-chair term.
The applicable section (i.e. 3.3) says the Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term. Given the current polarized state of this working group, perhaps Afrinic staff under the guidance of the CEO and some advisory from the Board (being the representatives of resource members) could convene an online meeting in which the working group properly analyzes the situation and chooses a path forward?
Considering our current fear of room stacking ahead of either face to face and online polls, it would be interesting to see how we resolve this one. Is this the birth of a PDWG led by a small group rather than 2 individuals? A group given a mandate to somehow tidy up many of the flaws in the current PDP?
Regards,
Dewole who quickly runs off to get a flame retardant suit :-P
On 2/9/2021 7:17 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:
I don't agree Fernando, a committee does not usually have that 'absoluteness' you mentioned. I can also understand the remarks 'Findings/Outcome of the Recall Committee' to mean that there is a hanging process.
Please, the committee's outcome remains that the Co-Chairs should be recalled. There must be a pronouncement from the board that constituted the Recall committee. This is not a market square so we cannot take the 'shout of a mad man in the market to mean the proclamation of the king'. The king must speak through the authorised channel, before the people can accept.
Therefore, we wait!
Simply
Daniel
On 09/02/2021 3:18 am, Badru Ntege wrote:
I believe this is the correct understanding of the outcome.
We now need to move forward with the selection of new co-chairs.
The community is committed to accept the outcome of the committee.
Lets move on.
Regards.
From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 01:45
To: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs
No Daniel, the output of the Recall Committee regarding the Co-Chairs is already final (read point 19 from their report) according to whats the CPM says about it, so it does not have to be approved by anyone, not even the Board itself.
So currently we don't have any Co-Chairs.
What the Committee has mentioned in the document is for the Board to lead the election of the new Co-Chairs and determine the transition during this interim.
That's it.
Fernando
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, 19:29 Daniel Yakmut via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
Here we are indeed in a strange situation, which we created for
ourselves. A situation we were drumming for. I thought we all had it
figured out and that is why we called for recall of the Co-chairs.
I am baffled that Jordi is already making a suggestion on how to proceed
to get new Co-Chairs. When the recommendations of the Recall Committee
has not being assented to. Though, I don't know who is to approve the
recommendations of the committee.
Hence, the response of Jordi is not tenable here, since I have not seen
any declaration that, we don't have co-chairs. I am aware that the Alan
Barret led committee made recommendations, which requires acceptance,
approval and implementation.
I am rather seeing a strange situation in the haste that is being
suggested on how to deal with the 'situation of no Co-chairs'.
I am currently studying the documents provided by the Recall Committee,
to enable one make an appropriate comment. But, at this early stages the
outcome of the committees report remains just recommendations.
Simply,
Daniel
On 08/02/2021 9:52 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are in a very strange situation now.
>
> We have no co-chairs, we have no meetings (because the Covid) so elections could take place.
>
> The Recall Committee suggested that the section 3.3 of the CPM shall take effect (if the working group chair is unable to serve his or her full term the WG may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term).
>
> The Recall Committee report already suggested that the PDWG should work on this and coordinate with the board.
>
> Guys, this is our "problem" as a community. Remember that the board is only helping the community here organizing the elections.
>
> Is not the board who choose the candidates and elects them it is our tasks. Remember that without co-chairs, we can't advance with our work. Who takes care of ensuring a profitable discussion in the list for any policy proposal (and we have many in the table), or even ensuring that there is not any abuse or bad behavior during this period?
>
> I will like to propose a few ideas and I hope that others also do the same. Remember that this is transition period:
>
> 1) Ask the board to choose among previous co-chairs that already have proven experience (and hopefully they accept).
> 2) Nominate ourselves those previous co-chairs.
> 3) A combination of both 1 and 2 above (example, board nominates one, the community another).
> 4) Instead of looking for a temporary replacement, asking the board to organize elections in a maximum of 4-6 weeks, using the same procedure that was prepared for the last time and using the same electoral census.
>
> If we want to board to hear us and take a decision, we should try to reach consensus *among us* without co-chairs. I know it seems difficult, but I'm convinced that at difficult times, this community will be able to work together.
>
> Eddy, I will love to hear also what you have to say, or if the board already has worked out something, etc.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
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
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
--
Regards,
Dewole.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
--
Regards,
Dewole.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
--
Regards,
Dewole.
**********************************************
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/20210209/b33613cd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list