[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 173, Issue 46

[BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord]

Chers membres de la communauté,
L'expérience on l'acquéreur où on né avec?
Je ne suis pas d'accord de prendre que ceux qu'on pense avoir l'expérience.
Il nous faut des personnes disponibles et assidue pour rendre service à la
communauté afrinic.
Voilà il ya un vide que nous même avons créer et comment le préparer ?
Nous devons avoir une transition pour la couverture du vide et assurer le
fonctionnement avant , pendant les élections. Cela ne demande pas seulement
un ancien ou nouveau mais des personnes qui peuvent soit se manifester
volontairement et sur base de cette liste le conseille d'administration va
nommé attendant les élections.
Je suis pas d'accord sur la proposition de prendre celui qui a l'expérience
ou ancien co-chair. Ici qui a l'expérience et qui n'en a pas?
Chers tous je dit.

Le jeu. 11 févr. 2021 à 16:31, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :


> Send RPD mailing list submissions to

>         rpd at afrinic.net

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>         rpd-request at afrinic.net

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

>    1. Re: WE NEED YOUR INPUT, MAXIMUM BY TUESDAY 16TH NOON:

>       Decision of way forward for new (transition or elected) co-chairs

>       (Arnaud AMELINA)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:30:23 +0000

> From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>

> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>

> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] WE NEED YOUR INPUT, MAXIMUM BY TUESDAY 16TH NOON:

>         Decision of way forward for new (transition or elected) co-chairs

> Message-ID:

>         <CAGDMR_f1cM99vnGuVz73RhEjrx-o9=0ZZa-Q7=

> t+niaq-hpLoA at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>

> Je pense que c'est l'id?e du vote m?me que nous rejetons surtout s'il faut

> utiliser Cette Liste de discussion compl?tement compromise par des

> identit?s fictives. Je soutiens ce que Marcus a dit. Donc vraiment il faut

> que la communaut? liste les pr?-requis pour occuper de telles positions,

> car place des gens qui n'ont pas l'exp?rience donne les r?sultats qu'on a

> observ? avec les co-pr?sidents d?chus de leur fonctions. S'ils ?taient bon

> et qu'ils avaient suivi les principes de fonctionnement de cette communaut?

> ils n'auraient pas ?t? d?chus, car certains membres du Groupe qui a

> travaill? dans le RC, ce n'est pas toi qui me dira le contraire sont des

> personnes assez exp?riment?es, reconnues comme comp?tentes sur tous

> plusieurs plans et qui ont servi cette communaut?.

>

> Donc Cette communaut? qui a r?clam?e leur d?ch?ance n'est pas dupe donc

> arr?tes de nous distraire Owen, en d?fendant l'ind?fendable et permet ?

> cette communaut? d'avancer sur la meilleur solution qui nous ?vitera de

> commettre les m?mes erreurs qu'avant.

>

> Cordialement.

>

> Le jeu. 11 f?vr. 2021 ? 14:02, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a ?crit :

>

> > 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 f?vr. 2021 ? 12:20, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a ?crit :

> >

> >>

> >>

> >> 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 s?rieux l?, Owen, tu veux dire que tout le travail que le RC a

> > fait serait inutile et que les m?me qu'ils viennent de d?m?tre peuvent

> ?tre

> > encore autoris?s ? comp?tir ?

> >

> >>

> >> 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.html

> >

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 173, Issue 46

> ************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210211/8f7627d6/attachment-0001.html>