Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Missing ratification request documents
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 18 02:09:58 UTC 2021
> On Feb 16, 2021, at 12:19 PM, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hum please see inline
> Le mar. 16 févr. 2021 à 13:44, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :
>> On Feb 16, 2021, at 05:22 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 1st: How would the cochairs send a WG discussions report and ratification request to board without Cc’ing the rpd list?
>> This constitutes a clear violation of the transparency principle and long standing practices of the WG...( report to board always made public)
> I’ve been on this list for a long time… I don’t recall any of the co-chair requests to the board for ratification being sent to this list, yet you say this has always happened?
> Is my memory so faulty?
> Your memory is not faulty.
> Your real participation in the PDP in this region started when the last former two cochairs got elected and as they never published their report to board... you can't remember that...
You are very wrong here… I’ve been participating actively in the AFRINIC RPD since shortly after the Rabaat meeting and have seen many co-chairs come and go.
> The problem is that you did not try to search the archives and also did not find anything wrong if reports to board were not made public...
I’m all for the reports being made public, but so far, this has not been the norm.
> But as I said in my previous mail... you are definitely on a mission against the "vapoware" for reasons which are now visible and you can’t even act consistently.
I am not on a mission against AFRINIC. At the time I referred to AFRINIC as vaporware, it still was. Now it has long since reached fruition and your continued antagonism with this phrase says more about you than it does me. I have consistently tried to work in the interests of the AFRINIC community and the internet in general. The main difference between us is that while I can recognize that your motives may be good even if your actions do not seem so, you seem to lack the ability to understand that just because someone opposes your viewpoint does not mean that they have evil intent or are your enemy.
> If your memory tells you that cochairs never publish their report to board... why are you now asking that this one be made public?
There is a very wide gap between “always” and “never”. I am willing to accept that some, even several may have escaped my notice, but I am quite certain that you cannot meet the test of “always” for all of AFRINIC history.
> Why should these reports be kept secret?
I see no reason for them to be secret and you will notice that I actually suggested they should be posted to the list in addition to forwarding to the board.
The PDP calls for them to be sent to the board and does not require them to be sent to the list. I would support such an amendment to the PDP if it were proposed.
> Previous cochairs adhered to the transparency principle and always made public their report to board....
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007944.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007944.html>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009079.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009079.html>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008498.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008498.html>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008499.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008499.html>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008500.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008500.html>
5 reports over 3 years hardly constitutes “always”, especially when 3 of the reports relate to the same meeting and there were at least 6 meetings over the course of those 3 years. What about the reports going back further years?
>> 2nd: how come board would not have received a mail sent by cochairs?
I do not know. There are a variety of possible reasons including technical problems, incorrect address in email, etc. People make mistakes. Email gets lost sometimes. I don’t have the necessary access to fully investigate this particular incident, nor do I seem significant benefit likely to come from doing so. I have no reason to believe that either the previous co-chairs or the board are acting in bad faith here or making false claims. Do you have any evidence to support such a belief?
Absent that, I think that we should offer both groups the benefit of the doubt and thus, I requested co-chairs resend the original email and send it to the list as well. Seems like this should be exactly what you would be asking for as well based on your above comments, yet somehow you view my suggestion with suspicion and mistrust.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD