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

[Ibeanusi Elvis]

Dear Noah,

I do not comply or agree with this idea of having a discussion about the
criteria. The CPM is very clear about the elections, it’s open and there
are no such discriminations. This goes against the core values of the PDP.
Likewise, setting a criterion without a policy proposal goes against the
PDP.

Additionally, the criteria you set sounds very exclusive because there are
people with fewer years in participation but are very knowledgeable about
the CPM and passionately active in every discussion of the AFRINIC.
Similarly, if there are specific or certain places that they are not so
knowledgeable on, that’s why they have the AFRINIC Staff to their disposal
for assistance.

Also, (4) “Affiliation with an entity which is an AFRINIC Resource
member....” I believe this might lead to a co-chair being bias during
discussion and decision making. Finally, I do not agree with (6) because of
how difficult it might be for a person to maintain calmness because we
should all remember that everyone here is human and sometimes, some direct
personal commmets are being made towards the co-chairs and it is going to
be extremely challenging to tell a person to remain calm.

Elvis

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 18:54 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


> What about making 2 lists, one for requirements, one for desired or

> convenient aspects?

>

>

>

> Should we also, as part of the convenient aspects, include “live in

> AFRINIC coverage regions”?

>

>

>

> So, we will have:

>

>

>

>    1. Requirements

>

>

>    1. Understanding of RFC7282.

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

>       discussion. Withdrawing from them if selected is not acceptable.

>       3. Active (not just reading emails) participation in PDWG for at

>       least 2 years.

>       4. Clear understanding of CPM/PDP.

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

>

>

>

>    1. Desired Capabilities

>

> 2.1 Ability to remain calm in the face of provocations and respect for the

> diversity

>

> 2.2 Be (or employed by) an AFRINIC resource-holder

>

> 2.3 Ability to openly declare lack of knowledge to assess the community

> inputs on specific topics and call for staff or experts advise

>

>

>

> (note that I’ve reworded diversity, because this way it is more ample, it

> is not just geography)

>

>

>

> I prefer not keep discussing (not important at this point, we can do it

> later) if a process should be part of the PDP or not. I think it is.

> Anything that modifies the way the PDP is “read” or “interpreted” must be

> part of the PDP.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 19/2/21 10:22, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> 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> escribió:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

> 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

>

>

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

> 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/e6c533d4/attachment-0001.html>