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

[Daniel Yakmut]

Dear Mark,
I am not confusing or confused about the situation. I am not too sure your
analogy resembles our current situation. That not withstanding, the matter
can be address without making any temporary arrangements.

Time has changed and we are not the same in size and character, when we
could function without co-chairs.

So I am suggesting that the closest to not breaking anything is conducting
an election ASAP.

Simply
Daniel



On Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 9:50 AM Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:


> Dear Daniel,

>

> You appear to be confusing Guidelines, Rules and Law.

>

> If you are travelling along a road and the local municipality is fixing a

> water leak that is on your side of the road, you are, with caution, allowed

> to avoid the hole by going onto the other side of the road, despite the law

> saying you must drive on the "correct" side (whether that be the Left or

> the Right).

>

> There is nothing wrong with that.

>

> What would wrong is driving on the wrong side of the road without an

> appropriate reason.

>

> So I am not saying anyone must break the rules (or guidelines) but our

> rules are written with a particular environment in mind and if that

> environment has changed, we still use the rules to guide us but may

> temporarily circumvent an obstacle in our way without breaking the spirit

> of the law, that is, keeping as close as we can to the correct path.

>

> We've had no Co-Chairs present in meetings before in the early days - and

> we survived.

> On 2/20/21 11:19 PM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:

>

> Dear PWDG,

>

> It is clear we cannot alter the rules in the middle of the game. Any new

> rules to make one eligible to be a co-chair that is not in any of our books

> is not tenable.

>

> What should be done, is to start a process that is legitimate and conforms

> to the CPM and any other reference,  to create the new eligibility rules.

> However, I understand that this has to come as a proposed policy and it has

> to go through the cycle of discussions and reaching a consensus, but this

> also is a challenge because we need a co-chair to coordinate the process

> and we don't have one.

>

> We are at a cross road, let me remind us that there is never a

> justification for breaking the law. I am aware that there is a  saying that

> "ignorance is not acceptable in law".  This is an interesting time in the

> life of PWDG. Therefore, except we are going to suspend the laws that guide

> us, then we have to abide by the law.

>

> *But we can also behave like a military junta, suspend the "constitution",

> do what we want to do.* Possibly restore it at some later time, but we

> would have set a precedence and  have to live with consequence of this

> action.

>

> Simply

>

> Daniel

>

>

> On 19/02/2021 9:49 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> While I’m ok with 6, I think this is clearly a basic point for any

> participant, not just candidates, because the AUP or CoC or whatever you

> want to call it, right?

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 19/2/21 8:54, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> I am OK with Noah's trajectory, proposition, and Mike's modification.

>

> Slight edit in 4. "which is am AFRINIC resource members" should read "who

> is an AFRINIC resource member"

>

> I also think we should add ...

>

> 6. Ability to remain calm in the face of provocation and respect for the

> continental diversity.

>

> Sunday.

>

> On 2/19/21 7:38 AM, Mike Silber wrote:

>

> Thanks Noah

>

>

>

> I think that is an excellent list.

>

>

>

> The only thing I would add to your point 5 is an intangible quality - a

> history (or perception) of building consensus. Some of us understand RFC

> 7282, but because of our passion, style or language are less successful (or

> perceived as less successful) at moving the group towards consensus.

>

>

>

> Regards

>

>

>

> Mike

>

>

>

> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 07:54, 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

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

>

> RPD mailing list

>

> RPD at afrinic.net

>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> _______________________________________________ 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> --

>

> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa

> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.826010496 <+27826010496>

> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

>

> [image: Posix Systems][image: VCARD for MJ Elkins]

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210221/d7fa3a26/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210221/d7fa3a26/attachment-0001.png>