Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Criteria for Eligibility or Selection of PDWG Co-Chairs
wijdan.goubi at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 15:17:24 UTC 2021
I totally agree with what you stated, I am highly with giving the
opportunity to a large number of people from different cultures and
backgrounds and allowing them to run for the co-chair position and that can
only be done by setting no criteria whatsoever for them to become
candidates, as long as they have good sufficient knowledge of both CPM and
PDP and a sense of commitment, and that would not only give everyone the
chance to run for the candidacy but it also will allow us as voters to feel
free voting for whoever we see is well-qualified for the position without
feeling pressured by any kind of restrictions.
Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 08:49, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 3:50 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
> Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 12:24, Wijdane Goubi <wijdan.goubi at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>> 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.
> Hi Wijdane,
> Thanks for participating, Sister.
> ...as you prefer *election* as the *selection* model to be used; the PDWG
> should then agree on at least few *criteria* to ensure that we end up with
> (i) a reasonable *limited* number of (ii) *sufficiently* capable
> Are you agreeing to these needs?
> I don’t agree that the number of candidates needs to be “a reasonable
> *limited* number”. If we get 150 candidates that are sufficiently capable
> and meet the criteria specified in the PDP, then so be it. This is yet
> another reason I favor ranked choice voting. Given Y candidates, people can
> rank the top X candidates in their order of preference where X≤Y and avoid
> voting for anyone they consider an unacceptable candidate. Then candidates
> with the least votes are eliminated, transferring the votes they received
> to the next preference of each voter until we have one candidate with more
> than 50% of the total vote who gets the longer term. Then the candidate
> with the next highest number of votes gets the shorter term.
> Simple, clean, and very effective at identifying candidates acceptable to
> the community at large, regardless of the number of candidates.
> 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.
> ...i'm sure we can also try to go ahead without
> any *criteria* but i can't personally encourage
> the PDWG to follow that path.
> We should seek qualified co-chairs, but qualified should be in the
> judgment of the electorate. We should not abdicate this authority to some
> arbitrary group enforcing some set of subjective criteria.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD