Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] WE NEED YOUR INPUT, MAXIMUM BY TUESDAY 16TH NOON: Decision of way forward for new (transition or elected) co-chairs

Mark Elkins mje at
Thu Feb 11 10:16:02 UTC 2021

I'll go with what Mike has said, that is - Option 1. I think a directive
from the CEO & Chair is all that is needed and doesn't really need to
wait a week for a full Board Meeting. It is on the shoulders of this
community to fix the problem.

I think we should only allow the same people that were eligible to vote
last time - which would save time. I presume that list still exists.

I'd like to see at least four people standing. I don't believe that the
two ex-chairs should be allowed to stand (we are trying to change a bad
situation). Personally, I'd like to see people standing that are
resource owners - as they then have their own skin in the game - as
such. No one with a policy in the current process chain should stand.

Most votes - person stands for remainder of two years,
second most votes - stands for remainder of this current year.

As Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> said on 24th Dec:

> Is it normal that out of 2 cochairs, none is contact of a resource
> Having a cochair who runs network and serves as contact (technical)
of a  resource member is a big wish as previously discussed in this

Lastly - Thanks Jordi!

On 2/11/21 11:45 AM, Mike Silber wrote:

> Jaco +1


> Really humbling that a WG member from outside our region is the one

> trying to drive to consensus.


> Some comments inline.


> Mike


>> On 11 Feb 2021, at 11:28, Jaco Kroon <jaco at

>> <mailto:jaco at>> wrote:


>> Hi Jordi,


>> 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).



> Agree with 1.


>> 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).


> Agreed



>>> 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).



>> 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).


> Agreed. I like the option of 4 + 3 if we can get some rough consensus

> on this list of some nominees. Particularly if (1) takes some time.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at       Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list