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

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

Wijdane Goubi wijdan.goubi at
Fri Feb 19 11:23:01 UTC 2021

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.



Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 à 06:52, Noah <noah at> 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



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

More information about the RPD mailing list