[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,

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
>

Hi Noah,

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 [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?
>>
>
> 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 [2] should be considered
> as first option by the WG.
>
> A selection based on ranking voting would be the second best choice imho
> so [3]  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 [1];
•2| a selection through rough consensus [2];
•3| a selection based on ranking voting [3];
•4| a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria [4];
•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
three years.


> 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
> space.
>

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.
>

...Criterion#4 second!


> 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
RFC7282.


> 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
> co-chairs.
>

...you are right! it has been left TBD (To Be Defined)
on my previous email.

Thanks & Blessed friday!

Shalom,
--sb.


> Cheers,
> Noah
>
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210219/b395f1f7/attachment.html>