[rpd] OoT (was: Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP?...)

[Sylvain Baya]

{useful Out of Topic :-)}

Dear PDWG,

Hope you are safe and well!

Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 09:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :


> Hi Sylvain,

>

>

>


Hi Jordi,
Brother i failed to answer this email since.

Sunday knows me very well and I’m sure he knows that I’m happy to work not

> just with him, but with **anyone** always (even with people that disagree

> with my proposals! Is not that surprising?).

>

>

>


Thanks for disclosing part of your long story with Sunday :-)

...i think it's useful as it shows how it's possible
to be (& stay) good friends and also being still
able defend opposed views in the PDWG. Perhaps
a lesson, to learn, for some of us? :-/


Sunday actually “rescued” me during a weekend from the “deportation” from

> Lagos that I suffered in the early years of AFRINIC when I was helping with

> the first IPv6 trainings. Note that I did nothing wrong, just the people in

> the consulate, wanted a brive and I fall into the trap! So we have a long

> history behind!

>

>

>


Even if i was already knowing the story, it's still
a good one...


:-) for me, i consider that difficult problems

always come with great solutions; to who can believe...

Thanks & Blessed tuesday!

Shalom,
--sb.

Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 19/2/21 9:50, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear PDWG,

>

> Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 06:29, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> a écrit :

>

>

>

> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, 01:56 Sylvain Baya, <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear PDWG,

>

>

>

> Hi  Sylvain

>

>

>

> Hi Noah,

>

>

>

> Thanks for your email, brother.

>

>

>

> ...just a precision to the PDWG: it's still Sunday

>

> who is checking the Rough Consensus on these selection matters :-)

>

>

>

> Maybe Jordi, who discarded my proposition

>

> to become a replacement/interim PDWG Chair,

>

> want to work with Sunday :-/

>

>

>

> ...any other volunteer? (we can have more than

>

> two, if we want)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....a remaining question:

>

> Which model of *selection* y'all prefer?

>

>

>

> ~°~

>

> • a selection based on an election (online) as usual [1];

>

> • a selection through rough consensus [2];

>

> • a selection based on ranking voting [3];

>

> • a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria [4];

>

> • any other possibility?

>

>

>

> Since the working group functions by participation, a selection by rough

> consensus would come in handy after all, the PDWG activities end goal is to

> accomplish work by finding a path to consensus so [2] should be considered

> as first option by the WG.

>

>

>

> A selection based on ranking voting would be the second best choice imho

> so [3]  should be considered as second choice by the WG imho.

>

>

>

> Thank you for sharing your choices.

>

>

>

> ...i failed to number the bullets :'-(

>

>

>

> then the choices become as below:

>

>

>

> ~°~

>

> •1| a selection based on an election (online) as usual [1];

>

> •2| a selection through rough consensus [2];

>

> •3| a selection based on ranking voting [3];

>

> •4| a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria [4];

>

> •5| any other possibility?

>

> ~°~

>

>

>

>

>

> NOTE: Before we even think of the above,  can we as a WG agree on a set of

> criteria for one to become a chair. This I believe is more important and I

> have some few ideas like;

>

>

>

> Many thanks for the proposed criteria.

>

>

>

>

>

> 1. Active participation in WG discussions, in say, the past 3 years.

>

>

>

> ...i amend Criterion#1 as follow: ...in at least one year during the past

> three years.

>

>

>

>

>

> 2. Demonstrate clear understanding of the CPM and especially sections that

> relate to PDWG.

>

>

>

> ...i second Criterion#2!

>

>

>

>

>

> 3. Some 5 years sound technical experience in this space with a clear

> understanding of Internet Protocol and preferably having worked in this

> space.

>

>

>

> I amend Criterion#3 in proposing to add this: ...could be an advantage.

>

>

>

>

>

> 4. Affiliation with an entity which is am AFRINIC resource members could

> come in handy.

>

>

>

> ...Criterion#4 second!

>

>

>

>

>

> 5. Understanding of rfc7282 and what rough consensus and consensus is all

> about, after all consensus is a path and not a destination.

>

>

>

> Brother, i don't get Criterion#5 very well. Please can you

> simplify/clarify the proposed text?

>

>

>

> ...i would have said it this way:

>

>

>

> Criterion#5. Understanding of how Rough

>

> Consensus achievement can be checking/

>

> verifying/conducting; in comformance with

>

> RFC7282.

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> Criterion#6. ...coming soon maybe ; -)

>

>

>

>

>

> 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 interim

> co-chairs.

>

>

>

> ...you are right! it has been left TBD (To Be Defined)

>

> on my previous email.

>

>

>

> Thanks & Blessed friday!

>

>

>

> Shalom,

>

> --sb.

>

>

>

>

>

> Cheers,

>

> Noah

>

>

>

>

>

> [...]

>

>

>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210223/21b7bcff/attachment-0001.html>