[rpd] We should be fair

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 20, 2021, at 5:03 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Dear PDWG,

> 

> Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 12:38, Paul Wollner <paul.wollner at africaoncloud.net <mailto:paul.wollner at africaoncloud.net>> a écrit :

> Dear Community:

> 

> 

> Hi Paul,

> Thank you for starting this thread, brother.

>  

> 

> I am writing to you just present a possible thought process based on recent publicly available fact:

> [...]

> 4. Chair of the board, without consent decision from the whole board,

> 

> 

> ...any evidence to support this affirmation?

>  

> 

> decided unilaterally to request AC stop working based on the resignation alone.

> 

> 

> ...i think the BoD's Chair has said that the decision 

> was based on an interpretation of a governing text.


Said interpretation is inconsistent with the text in question.

I am not accusing the chair of malicious intent here, but I am saying that his interpretation
does not match the words in the document for whatever reason(s).



>  

> 

> 5. We see 3-2 vote in AC’s minutes.

> 

> [...]

> 

> For the integrity of the process and to be fair to all parties, I would suggest the following:

> 

> 1. AC continues finish the currant appeal that is in process and publish its report.

> 2. Board appoints an investigation committee after above process is finalised and make a public report on the allegations. Since these are serious and public allegations, so should the results be of the investigation. We should take serious action prevent the said person in engaging in community work again. If nothing is found, we should also make it clear to the world that it was an unfound accusation and it was of malicious intent in nature.

> 

> ...i and others have already called the BoD to do 

> something similar :-/

> The BoD's Chair has promised to discuss with 

> PDWG's AC members...iirc.


Then let us look forward to the outcome of that discussion, but I hope that the chair will
comply with the actual text of the document, rather than produce more creative interpretations
for us to react to.
 

> 3. If possible, AFRINIC should publish the recorded zoom meeting video file for the public to review.

> 

> 

> ...this should be only accessible to the investigation 

> committee, at least until it confirms that there is nothing 

> to hide. 


I think I agree with the sentiment I believe you are trying to convey, but I cannot agree
with the above words.

The video should be made available for the investigation (If one exists, and I agree one
should). It should not be made public unless misconduct is identified and even then, only
the portions of the video that are evidence of the misconduct should be made available.

If a committee’s meeting videos are going to be made public, the members of that committee
should be aware of that intent prior to the meeting. Otherwise, it is unfair to the members
of the committee to abruptly make public what they were told was a private meeting going
in and it will inhibit frank and honest discussion in such meetings.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210223/08619a35/attachment.html>