[rpd] Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear PDWG,

Please see below (inline)...

Le jeu. 18 févr. 2021 21:17, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com> a écrit :


> Sylvain,

>

> You wrote

> *"10| Let's back to the PDP to do the only task  we PDWG are allowed to do

> without our Chairs.  Sunday, please can you handle the process  to help the

> PDWG to enforce its PDP?" *

>

>

> Enforcing the PDP is not the role of anyone person. We all should be

> active and vigilant.

>


Hi Sunday,
Thanks for you kick response, brother.

[...]

>

> I still insist that the provisions of the PDP, according to the CPM is:

>

> *"If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the

> Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.

> If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting,

> the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at

> the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate

> in the selection process for a temporary Chair"*

>


...exactly !



> See the word selection process there? That is what we need to define by

> consensus.

>


Agreed! thanks for pointing it out.

As a working group, we can select our Co-Chairs, by simply asking the

> staff/Policy Liaison to call for volunteers, and shepherd the process,

> reverting always to the WG for guidance, when needed (which ultimately

> defines the process)

>

> I like the proposition by Noah, specifically:

>

> *"Can AFRINIC staff and specifically Madhvi take up the lead and work with

> the WG to ensure that its following the CPM to fill the vacancy.  I dont

> support the rushed work that was done here by Jordi since there is already

> claims of misinteretation.  Please afford this working group time to self

> organise"*

>


...i'm ok with the implication of the policy liaison to ease the process.



> I urge everyone to adopt it, as a way forward with an Affirmative YES.

> Personally, I support the above CPM-compatible line of action.

>

>

YES



> Anyone can also propose some other CPM-Compatible action

>

>

....a remaining question:
Which model of *selection* y'all prefer?

~°~
• a selection based on an election (online) as usual [1];
• a selection through rough consensus [2];
• a selection based on ranking voting [3];
• a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria [4];
• any other possibility?
~°~

Thanks once more!
__
[1]: <
https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group?lang=en-GB#election>
[2]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus>
[3]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting>
[4]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college>

Shalom,
--sb.



> Sunday.

>

>

> On 2/18/21 1:04 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote:

>

> {start a new thread from [1]}

>

> Dear PDWG,

>

> Hope you are safe and well!

>

> <tl;dr>

> This PDWG has violated its own PDP by reaching a consensus non

> PDP-compliant. In fact, the actualités CPM (version 1.6) contains no

> provision which could allow the PDWG to varying the process without at

> least one PDWG's Chair in place.

> <tl;dr>

>

> [...]

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210218/4171ab42/attachment.html>