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)

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Wed Feb 24 00:02:04 UTC 2021


On 23/02/2021 20:46, Owen DeLong wrote:



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

>> <mailto: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.

Yes, and that's neeed. The criteria is for both voters and candidates.


>> 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?

No, I am saying two things: 1) Not everybody should be considered a
elector until he/she is qualified for that and that is pretty much Ok.
That has the potential to damage the environment for many reasons
already discussed. 2) Candidates must meet minimal criteria like be
around for sometime, and have not been recalled anytime recentlly.


>> 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).

Fine we agree on that.


> There should be verification that each registered voter is an actual

> and identified unique person.

Agree as well, very much.


> 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.

I would say that a Co-Chair role is not much distant from a Board role
in terms of seriousness of the subjects discussed and decided with
his/her involvement. Not only the membership by the Policy Forum is a
fundamental part of any RIR really.
If there is a possibility of sock puppent we must take that seriously
and I see no problem at all to limit voters in a reasonable and
justified way.

As I mentioned before, newer people should come interested in discuss
and build good policies not in being able to vote straight away. Right
to vote will come naturally later on.


> 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.

Not eliminating at all. They are all welcome and free to put up their
opinions at any time.
Whenever they are able to show commitment to all to the PDWG and not
just an ad-hoc participation or even only a simple subscription, they
would became able to voters.


>> 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.

Sounds a good start.



> Owen



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

More information about the RPD mailing list