[rpd] Criteria for Eligibility or Selection of PDWG Co-Chairs

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 21, 2021, at 2:13 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Dear PDWG,

> 

> Hope Y'all are safe and well!

> 

> Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 08:49, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :

> 

> > [...]

> >>

> >

> > ...as you prefer *election* as the *selection* model to be used; the PDWG 

> > should then agree on at least few *criteria* to ensure that we end up with 

> > (i) a reasonable *limited* number of (ii) *sufficiently* capable 

> > candidates. 

> >

> > Are you agreeing to these needs?

> >

> > I don’t agree that the number of candidates needs to be “a reasonable 

> > *limited* number”. 

> >

> 

> Hi Owen,

> 

> Thanks for your email.

> 

> Brother, when we decide to define a set of *criteria* we'll 

> endeniably end-up with at least a *virtual* limitation which 

> could prevent someones to become candidates. There is no *real* limitation 

> on the number of candidates, 

> in the ongoing process [1] through the PDWG.


We already have criteria… They are specified in the CPM.

The other criteria under discussion cannot be applied to prevent someone from
running in the election. Voters are (individually) free to use any proposed
criteria (or not) as they decide who to vote for.


> 

> >

> > If we get 150 candidates that are sufficiently capable and meet the 

> > criteria specified in the PDP, then so be it. 

> >

> 

> ...inside the PDP version [2] in use?


There is one PDP at any given time… The current one is enshrined in the
most recent version of the CPM and will apply until amended by consensus
of this group and ratified by the board.


> ...BtW, i have no personal concern about, even if i understand 

> that if such situation occurs (which is not an option to 

> consider more, due to the stats we know) it could become 

> more difficult to apply certain models of *selection* [3]. 


A ranked choice vote can be applied to any number of candidates, especially
when done electronically. The math required to count the votes is quite simple
and the consolidation process is a very simple algorithm for any computer
to handle.


> That is why this [4] proposition of model of *selection* 

> has been, also, proposed that way:

> 

> • [A] a selection through rough consensus [...] After prospects do 

> volunteer;

> • [B] a selection based on ranking voting [...] if more than 2 volunteers,

> then discussions;


Unless there are more than 2 candidates, then ranked choice voting and
consensus have no difference. Either case would require affirmation of
more than 50% of the electorate for the candidates.

Ranked choice voting would be done online as well, same as [C] below.


> • [C] a selection based on an election (online) as usual [...] if more

> than 2 candidates and discussions stalemate;


Is [C] a proposal for a first-past-the-post style election conducted online?
It’s unclear to me because you consistently state it as if the difference
between [B] and [C] relates to “on-line” or not, which is not true. Any
election we are likely to have on any timely basis will be on-line.


> • [D] a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ([...]);


This would violate the PDP.


> • [E] any other possibility?


[A] through [C] are arguably within the PDP. [D] is not and [E] is unlikely
to come up with something that is that wouldn’t be some subset or minor
deviation of [A] through [C].

Indeed, [A] is a minor deviation of [B] in a limited circumstance.



> 

> >

> > This is yet another reason I favor ranked choice voting. Given Y 

> > candidates, people can rank the top X candidates in their order of 

> > preference where X≤Y and avoid voting for anyone they consider an 

> > unacceptable candidate. Then candidates with the least votes are 

> > eliminated, transferring the votes they received to the next preference of 

> > each voter until we have one candidate with more than 50% of the total vote 

> > who gets the longer term. Then the candidate with the next highest number 

> > of votes gets the shorter term.

> >

> > Simple, clean, and very effective at identifying candidates acceptable to 

> > the community at large, regardless of the number of candidates.

> >

> 

> ...let's see if your choice [5] will win through this part of 

> the process [1].


Not entirely clear on your meaning here.


> 

> >

> > Hence, making a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair is 

> >> going to put obstacles and barriers in front of both voters and candidates. 

> >>

> >> Therefore, I absolutely don’t go along with the view of putting 

> >> restrictions on candidates no matter what hardships we went through during 

> >> the time of the previous co-chairs otherwise it might lead us to 

> >> misjudgments and discrimination.

> >>

> >

> > ...i'm sure we can also try to go ahead without 

> > any *criteria* but i can't personally encourage 

> > the PDWG to follow that path.

> >

> > We should seek qualified co-chairs, but qualified should be in the 

> > judgment of the electorate. We should not abdicate this authority to some 

> > arbitrary group enforcing some set of subjective criteria.

> >

> 

> Thanks for supporting this [5] initiative, which could become 

> a formal DPP afterwards.


Since what I have proposed is already in compliance with the PDP, the only
need to create a DPP would be if we wanted to constrain or force future
elections to be conducted by ranked-choice voting. While I would not oppose
such an initiative, I’m also not sure it is necessary.

Owen


> __

> [1]: Overview of the ongoing processus

> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html>>

> [2]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>>

> [3]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html>>

> [4]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html>>

> [5]: Action3|

> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html>>

> 

> Shalom,

> --sb.

> 

> 

> >

> > Owen

> >

> > [...]

> >

> 

> 

> 

> -- 

> --

> Best Regards !

> __

> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki <http://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>>

> Subscribe to Mailing List: <lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/ <http://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>>

> __

> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»

> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬

> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210223/6f2a11d8/attachment.html>