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

[Sunday Folayan]

Jordi,

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!"


Sunday.



> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

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

> escribió:

>

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

> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> 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 ?

> 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/20210219/1a0fe0c5/attachment-0001.html>