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

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Feb 23 23:46:32 UTC 2021

> On Feb 20, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


> Folks, we must have a criteria.



You are unclear what you want criteria for here… There are two categories… Voters and Candidates.

For candidates, we have a criteria… The candidate with the largest plurality of votes.

This criteria is objective and clear. It provides for the candidate with support of the largest number of members of the community.

Any other criteria are either subject in themselves or of subjective value in eliminating potential candidates from the choices available to the electorate.

> It is always beautiful to welcome anyone without any limits but it puts it has the potential do put the whole thing is serious danger.


Are you saying that the electorate cannot be trusted to choose the most qualified and most appropriate candidates? Are you saying that you want to substitute some other group’s judgment in front of that of the electorate? What group would this be?

> There must be always a mechanism that doesn't allow anyone to vote straight away "just for being there", otherwise it opens doors to anyone willing to manipulate de process. Isn't already enough the hundreds of subscriptions there was in the last prior the last process ? Isn't that obvious there is a risk in there ?


For voters, I am perfectly willing to accept criteria on eligibility to vote that sets a date certain prior to the announcement of the election (possibly even as far back as the eligibility date for the previous election in this case).

There should be verification that each registered voter is an actual and identified unique person.

Beyond that, there really is no valid way to reject voters. Is that open to the possibility of sock puppets, astro turfing, and cutouts? Yes. However, since we are talking about a PDWG co-chair position and not a member of the board with fiduciary responsibility, I think that’s OK. There are checks and balances in place to deal with co-chairs that behave inappropriately or fail to do the job. We have demonstrated that these mechanisms work.

There are checks and balances built into the policy development process, including the requirement that any adopted policy be ratified by the board before it is enacted which protect us from the possibility of organizational capture and other malfeasance.

You cannot claim to have a bottom up process if you arbitrarily eliminate members from the bottom of the process.

> The important thing to have in mind is that having these mechanisms to limit those who can participate at any election process DOES NOT limit any new people to participate in the discussions at any time. The interest from newer people should not be to be able to vote straight away, but to contribute. The right to decide will come as something natural later on.


I support this limit and only the limits mentioned by me above:
1. Registered on list prior to <date> where <date> predates the notice of the election.
2. Is a unique actual identified human being.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list