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

[Wijdane Goubi]

Dear community,

Admittedly, one of the most critical ways that us as individuals can
influence the decision-making within the community is through voting, which
is a right and a formal expression of preference for a candidate for a
proposed resolution of an issue.

Hence, making a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair is
going to put obstacles and barriers in front of both voters and candidates.

Therefore, I absolutely don’t go along with the view of putting
restrictions on candidates no matter what hardships we went through during
the time of the previous co-chairs otherwise it might lead us to
misjudgments and discrimination.

Of course, that is one way of looking at it; however we are talking about a
voluntary position which simply should be for people who have a good
knowledge of CPM and PDP alongside with a sense of commitment, devotion,
and responsibility towards the community.

Regards,

Wijdane

Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 à 06:52, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> a écrit :


> Hi PDWG participants,

>

> Could we as a WG participants agree on a set of criteria for a WG

> participant to become a co-chair.

>

> This I believe is more important and I had shared some few ideas below a

> separate thread but I think it would make sense to work this out on this

> new thread.

>

> Some thoughts that crossed my mind as criteria;

>

> 1. Active participation in WG discussions by a participant, in say, the

> past 3 years.

>

> 2. Participant should demonstrate a clear understanding of the CPM and

> especially sections that relate to the PDWG.

>

> 3. Participant should have some 5 years sound technical experience in this

> space with a clear understanding of Internet Protocol and preferably having

> worked in this space.

>

> 4. Affiliation with an entity which is am AFRINIC resource members could

> come in handy for a participant interested in chairing policy discussions.

>

> 5. Understanding of rfc7282 and what rough consensus and consensus is all

> about, after all consensus is a path and not a destination. This is very

> important.

>

> 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.

>

> 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 the

> interim co-chairs.

>

> Cheers

> Noah

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20210219/1d5b0c85/attachment.html>