Search RPD Archives
[rpd] WE NEED YOUR INPUT, MAXIMUM BY TUESDAY 16TH NOON: Decision of way forward for new (transition or elected) co-chairs
jaco at uls.co.za
Thu Feb 11 09:28:57 UTC 2021
Thank you for your drive on this.
On 2021/02/11 10:45, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Hi all,
> Following the previous email, we have 4 choices for selecting the new co-chairs:
> 1. Halt everything regarding PDP decisions, until the board can organize on-line elections in a few weeks (with the previous electoral census).
> 2. Halt everything regarding PDP decisions, until the board can organize an in-person meeting and then we can have on-site elections (we don't know when we will have a new in-person meeting).
Either option here is OK by me, I'd recommend for the sake of time till
ELECTED chairs if possible to go for option 1. The downside of that is
as Mark Elkins has pointed out bogus accounts. Thus in long term (but
don't think it's an option now) that voting be restricted to some form
of validated accounts (ie, that Porky What'sHisName gets filtered out).
In-person this problem is less so because you can't exactly raise your
ghost hand. And there is controversy about new subscriptions (and
specifically the subscription spike). As such:
Pros for (1) / Cons against (2):
- quicker turn around for (1)
- we don't know when feasible we would be able to arrange for (2)
Cons against (1) / Pros for (2)
- Easier to generate bogus votes for (1).
One way to sort out one may be to use a video conf tool whereby the
meeting chair can see everybody and thus validate that each participant
is at least a human being. Or we could restrict to valid AfriNIC paid
up members's email accounts. Each of those again have pro's and con's
but outside the scope of this discussion, but just to indicate the
severity of the con for (1).
> 3. Ask the board to choose 2 transition co-chairs, so we can have elections in the future (option 2 above).
> 4. Nominate ourselves a few names for transition co-chairs and let the board to decide among them, once they confirm their willingness to take the job, so we can have elections in the future (option 2 above).
Unless the elections can happen very soon (week or two) we need to have
the board elect chairs for us during their meeting on the 17th, ideally
from a set of nominees (which can also feed into the nomcom for nominees
for (1) or (2) above). As SM has indicated, we cannot operate without
chairs, as such, I don't think we have much of a choice in the matter
here, but these mandates should be as per CPM until the next elections only.
4 at least gives community input into the board decision, but if we
don't have at least two nominees, or those two don't have the required
background / skills then what should the board do?
Personally I don't really think that (3) and (4) are two distinct
options, more like we should try to get recommendations / nominees to
the board as per 4, and then give the board prerogative to select the
candidates (even from non-nominees if none of the nominees have the
required background / skills / suitability, obviously with motivations).
I sincerely hope this is the kind of input/feedback you're looking for.
At this stage, I think what I'd like to see is some form of "job
specification" whereby it can be gauged firstly who would be the people
with te right background / skills / suitability, as well as any
eliminating criteria (eg, someone who serves on the board may/should not
be a chair).
> Note that each person supporting/objecting one or serveral choices, should briefly detail what are the pros and cons that he/she understands need to be considered. Note that this is a consensus base decision, not a voting, and the objections should be as less subjective as possible and looking for the good of the overall community, not personal or business interests.
> If you think that option 3 or 4 are the right ones, this is not the time to set any conditions or nominate people. Will need to define specific time frame after the decision is taken. Otherwise, may not be able to reach consensus quickly.
> REMARK: We need to tell the board our decision, by consensus by next Tuesday (16th February), so only comments received up to Tuesday noon could be considered in the final summary.
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> 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
More information about the RPD