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

[Gaby Giner]

Hi Noah,


Thank you for taking the time in creating the criteria. I understand the
intent behind creating such criteria to filter the candidates however I am
of the mind that it would go against the inclusivity principle of the CPM.
Without echoing other people, I do believe that this could become rather
elitist in approach, insofar that it excludes capable volunteers but lacks
the finer details you want (volunteers that are scarce and hard to find,
much less the already reduced pool subjected to stringier filters).


Another point to consider is that say, the community says yes to this, but
down the line some misunderstanding and disagreement happen to challenge
the “legality” of this criteria in terms of the CPM (whether or not it is
enforceable because it wasn’t made into policy etc). Even if this goes into
a proposal, I think you’d also find the same objections stated above.


Lastly, the criteria itself could be questioned. I mean, what is the
rationale behind certain details such as “five years sound technical
experience”, or “affiliation with an entity which is an AFRINIC resource
member” – these details can be construed as kind of inequitable to the
co-chair position and those that want to volunteer.


TL;DR, I regrettably oppose this because a.) goes against inclusivity and
limits the already small pool of volunteers, b.) potential “legality”
problems down the line, c.) prejudiced against those who want to volunteer
for the position.


Thank you,
Gaby.


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:54 PM Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:


> 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/20210219/600663d2/attachment.html>