Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Criteria for Eligibility or Selection of PDWG Co-Chairs

Sunday Folayan sfolayan at
Fri Feb 19 09:21:47 UTC 2021


Please see my comments inset:

On 2/19/21 10:08 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:


> Hi Noah,


> I disagree, it is exactly the same:


> I “provoked” a discussion and the PDWG followed and then we reached

> consensus.


There was (rough) consensus truly, but it was an abdication of the PDWG
responsibilities. No Board action was required, and is not required.

> You “provoked” a discussion with a set of requirements and the PDWG is

> following it to reach consensus.


Hopefully ... and with PDWG action, and not Board action.

> Be sure that I will contribute, don’t cut down the email that shows

> clearly what I said. We can disagree, but not play with words, that's

> unfair, so repeating myself:


> Setting a criterion without a policy proposal and the subsequent PDP

> process is **against the PDP**.


Not really. The CPM talks of a process .... That is what we are
defining, and it need not go by way of actually drafting a policy and
waiting for an f2f meeting to discuss it and of course, there are no
co-chairs in place. This is even about the Co-Chairs!

> Nevertheless, if this is the path that the PDWG prefer, because this

> is about consensus, I agree.


You are a good man. Thank you!

> I will like to change the priority (make it a bit shorter also), add

> something but take something out:


> 1. Understanding of RFC7282.

> 2. Not being author of any of the actual policy proposals in discussion.

> 3. Active (not just reading emails) participation in PDWG. I think 2

> years is good enough.

> 4. Clear understanding of CPM/PDP.

> 5. At least 3 years of experience in networking.


Don't for get the number 6.

6. Ability to remain calm in the face of provocation and respect for the
continental diversity.

> Asking to be a member is discriminatory. If we add that, it should a

> “wish”, but never excluding. I see folks that I believe aren’t members

> and are contributing actively and their rationales are very logic.


So ... does

7. Preference will be for a volunteer affiliated to a member organization.

work for you?

> I think they should also commit, to ask help to staff or external

> experts when they don’t have knowledge in any specific topic before

> taking decisions and ensure that they are engaged with the participant

> discussions to clarify their position before going to take a decision

> “on-site” in the meeting.


Lol. How do we code that? sounds like ... "must have the ability to go
and eat, when hungry!"


> Regards,


> Jordi


> @jordipalet


> El 19/2/21 10:03, "Noah" <noah at <mailto:noah at>>

> escribió:


> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:54 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


> Now, you are doing exactly the same that you complained I did.

> Surprising!


> Not at all... on the contrary, the working group is participating in a

> discussion that stemmed from another discussion that had been started

> by Sylvain.


> Since you are a participant in the WG, I encourage you to contribute

> to the discussion.


> Noah



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

> 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.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list