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

[Sunday Folayan]

Thank you Jordi, for the work you have done in the community, and that 
you are still doing. Nostalgic, that we reached consensus with Nigerian 
Immigration that was not even a member of our community, when we needed to.

We can still do this one!

Sunday.

On 2/19/21 9:55 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> Hi Sylvain,

>

> 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!

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 19/2/21 9:50, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at gmail.com 

> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>> escribió:

>

> Dear PDWG,

>

> Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 06:29, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz 

> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> a écrit :

>

>     On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, 01:56 Sylvain Baya, <abscoco at gmail.com

>     <mailto: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

>

>                     [...]

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list 

> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> 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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210219/cd6c7bb6/attachment-0001.html>