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

[rpd] way forward on the PDWG after the Recall of the co-chairs

Gregoire EHOUMI gregoire.ehoumi at
Tue Feb 23 14:27:02 UTC 2021


> On Feb 21, 2021, at 7:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:



> Apologies for the confusion on where the prohibition of consensus was derived from. It was an honest mistake.


> In fact, the provenance of this document is unclear to me and I am unsure as to whether it is actually authoritative or not as a result.


> Can someone from staff please review that document and get back to this group on its provenance and level of authority over the conduct of the group?


> If we are not bound by that document, then I will, indeed, admit that consensus (if it can be achieved) may be a valid way forward.


> Now ,Gregoire, can you acknowledge that in a contentious environment where consensus cannot be achieved that an election, preferably one using ranked choice voting, is the best way forward?


> Owen


How do we measure the contention here?
How is this environment different from what is seen on other RIRs policy lists or at IETF?
Disagreeing with each other should never prevent progress as there are pre-defined rules, principles and safeguard.

How would voting help in a contentious environment?
I will rather advocate for consensus, as voting will only exacerbate things.

Would you say that because of the “contentious environment” we turn the working group decision making process on proposals from rough consensus to voting? I don't think so ...

If all are working in good faith and consensus can’t be reached through normal PDP consensus process on a good candidate to serve, yes, a ranked preferential voting is a good way forward as proposed here : <>

The ranked preferential voting is an extension of the consensual approach.
So consensus remains prevailing at all costs.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list