Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)
abscoco at gmail.com
Fri Feb 19 08:45:20 UTC 2021
Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 06:29, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> a écrit :
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, 01:56 Sylvain Baya, <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear PDWG,
> Hi Sylvain
Thanks for your email, brother.
...just a precision to the PDWG: it's still Sunday
who is checking the Rough Consensus on these selection matters :-)
Maybe Jordi, who discarded my proposition
to become a replacement/interim PDWG Chair,
want to work with Sunday :-/
...any other volunteer? (we can have more than
two, if we want)
>> ....a remaining question:
>> Which model of *selection* y'all prefer?
>> • a selection based on an election (online) as usual ;
>> • a selection through rough consensus ;
>> • a selection based on ranking voting ;
>> • a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ;
>> • any other possibility?
> Since the working group functions by participation, a selection by rough
> consensus would come in handy after all, the PDWG activities end goal is to
> accomplish work by finding a path to consensus so  should be considered
> as first option by the WG.
> A selection based on ranking voting would be the second best choice imho
> so  should be considered as second choice by the WG imho.
Thank you for sharing your choices.
...i failed to number the bullets :'-(
then the choices become as below:
•1| a selection based on an election (online) as usual ;
•2| a selection through rough consensus ;
•3| a selection based on ranking voting ;
•4| a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ;
•5| any other possibility?
> NOTE: Before we even think of the above, can we as a WG agree on a set of
> criteria for one to become a chair. This I believe is more important and I
> have some few ideas like;
Many thanks for the proposed criteria.
> 1. Active participation in WG discussions, in say, the past 3 years.
...i amend Criterion#1 as follow: ...in at least one year during the past
> 2. Demonstrate clear understanding of the CPM and especially sections that
> relate to PDWG.
...i second Criterion#2!
> 3. Some 5 years sound technical experience in this space with a clear
> understanding of Internet Protocol and preferably having worked in this
I amend Criterion#3 in proposing to add this: ...could be an advantage.
> 4. Affiliation with an entity which is am AFRINIC resource members could
> come in handy.
> 5. Understanding of rfc7282 and what rough consensus and consensus is all
> about, after all consensus is a path and not a destination.
Brother, i don't get Criterion#5 very well. Please can you simplify/clarify
the proposed text?
...i would have said it this way:
Criterion#5. Understanding of how Rough
Consensus achievement can be checking/
verifying/conducting; in comformance with
> Other participants in this WG can also add and we see what criteria are
> more required and which ones to discard to keep it simple.
Criterion#6. ...coming soon maybe ; -)
> I stand to be corrected but I think we as a WG have an obligation to first
> sort this requirements out before we can think of the selection of interim
...you are right! it has been left TBD (To Be Defined)
on my previous email.
Thanks & Blessed friday!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD