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)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Feb 19 08:55:28 UTC 2021
Sunday knows me very well and I’m sure he knows that I’m happy to work not just with him, but with *anyone* always (even with people that disagree with my proposals! Is not that surprising?).
Sunday actually “rescued” me during a weekend from the “deportation” from Lagos that I suffered in the early years of AFRINIC when I was helping with the first IPv6 trainings. Note that I did nothing wrong, just the people in the consulate, wanted a brive and I fall into the trap! So we have a long history behind!
El 19/2/21 9:50, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
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:
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 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.
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 co-chairs.
...you are right! it has been left TBD (To Be Defined)
on my previous email.
Thanks & Blessed friday!
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD