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

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Je pense que c'est l'idée du vote même que nous rejetons surtout s'il faut
utiliser Cette Liste de discussion complètement compromise par des
identités fictives. Je soutiens ce que Marcus a dit. Donc vraiment il faut
que la communauté liste les pré-requis pour occuper de telles positions,
car place des gens qui n'ont pas l'expérience donne les résultats qu'on a
observé avec les co-présidents déchus de leur fonctions. S'ils étaient bon
et qu'ils avaient suivi les principes de fonctionnement de cette communauté
ils n'auraient pas été déchus, car certains membres du Groupe qui a
travaillé dans le RC, ce n'est pas toi qui me dira le contraire sont des
personnes assez expérimentées, reconnues comme compétentes sur tous
plusieurs plans et qui ont servi cette communauté.

Donc Cette communauté qui a réclamée leur déchéance n'est pas dupe donc
arrêtes de nous distraire Owen, en défendant l'indéfendable et permet à
cette communauté d'avancer sur la meilleur solution qui nous évitera de
commettre les mêmes erreurs qu'avant.

Cordialement.

Le jeu. 11 févr. 2021 à 14:02, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a écrit :


> I am absolutely serious.

>

> All the work the recall committee has done has been to remove them from

> office. That’s been accomplished.

>

> However, neither that recall committee, nor those who called for the

> recall, even if combined constitute a majority of the community.

>

> The community should have the right to decide the co-chairs. I think it

> unlikely they would run in the first place, but even if they do,

> I think it extremely unlikely they would get a significant fraction of the

> vote under the circumstances.

>

> However, that is neither my, nor your decision to make on behalf of the

> community. Let the voters vote. Do you really think that

> it is so dangerous if the voters have this choice available to them that

> you are unwilling to trust the electorate?

>

> Owen

>

>

> On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:08 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> Le jeu. 11 févr. 2021 à 12:20, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a écrit :

>

>>

>>

>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 02:16 , Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>> I don’t think that they should be precluded from standing. While the

>> recall was successful and I think that they are unlikely to receive a

>> plurality of votes as a result, if the community votes to put them back

>> into office, I see no reason that the community should be deprived of that

>> option.

>>

> t'es pas sérieux là, Owen, tu veux dire que tout le travail que le RC a

> fait serait inutile et que les même qu'ils viennent de démètre peuvent être

> encore autorisés à compétir ?

>

>>

>> Most votes - person stands for remainder of two years,

>> second most votes - stands for remainder of this current year.

>>

>> As Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> <amelnaud at gmail.com> said on 24th

>> Dec:

>> > Is it normal that out of 2 cochairs, none is contact of a resource

>> member?

>> > Having a cochair who runs network and serves as contact (technical) of

>> a  resource member is a big wish as previously discussed in this community.

>>

>>

>> I don’t think it would be unreasonable to add this as an eligibility

>> requirement through modification of the relevant PDP sections, but I don’t

>> think we should be making it up on the fly without community discussion.

>> There is a process for amending the eligibility requirements and we should

>> follow it if we wish to do so.

>>

>> Owen

>>

>> !

>>

>>

>> 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 uls.co.za> 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>> --

>>

>> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa

>> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.826010496 <+27826010496>

>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

>>

>> <abessive_logo.jpg><QR-MJElkins.png>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

>>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210211/7b7cb592/attachment-0001.html>