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

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

Sylvain Baya abscoco at
Sun Feb 21 10:13:22 UTC 2021

Dear PDWG,

Hope Y'all are safe and well!

Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 08:49, Owen DeLong <owen at> a écrit :

> [...]



> 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


> (i) a reasonable *limited* number of (ii) *sufficiently* capable

> candidates.


> Are you agreeing to these needs?


> I don’t agree that the number of candidates needs to be “a reasonable

> *limited* number”.


Hi Owen,

Thanks for your email.

Brother, when we decide to define a set of *criteria* we'll
endeniably end-up with at least a *virtual* limitation which
could prevent someones to become candidates. There is no *real* limitation
on the number of candidates,
in the ongoing process [1] through the PDWG.


> If we get 150 candidates that are sufficiently capable and meet the

> criteria specified in the PDP, then so be it.


...inside the PDP version [2] in use?

...BtW, i have no personal concern about, even if i understand
that if such situation occurs (which is not an option to
consider more, due to the stats we know) it could become
more difficult to apply certain models of *selection* [3].

That is why this [4] proposition of model of *selection*
has been, also, proposed that way:

• [A] a selection through rough consensus [...] After prospects do
• [B] a selection based on ranking voting [...] if more than 2 volunteers,
then discussions;
• [C] a selection based on an election (online) as usual [...] if more
than 2 candidates and discussions stalemate;
• [D] a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ([...]);
• [E] any other possibility?


> 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


> each voter until we have one candidate with more than 50% of the total


> 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.


...let's see if your choice [5] will win through this part of
the process [1].


> Hence, making a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair


>> going to put obstacles and barriers in front of both voters and



>> Therefore, I absolutely don’t go along with the view of putting

>> restrictions on candidates no matter what hardships we went through


>> 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.


Thanks for supporting this [5] initiative, which could become
a formal DPP afterwards.
[1]: Overview of the ongoing processus
[2]: <>
[3]: <>
[4]: <>
[5]: Action3|



> Owen


> [...]


Best Regards !
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <>
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list