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

[rpd] Secretariat PDWG

Mirriam mirriamlauren at
Fri Feb 26 11:33:53 UTC 2021

Hi Anthony,
Yes my opinion on the re-called co-chairs stand because to me they were not that competent for the role. The reality is, one was really inactive and extremely passive.
The opinion of the few experienced participants which is sensible can be wiser than the opinion of majority community full of fake subscribers which may be misguided or disinterested in the working group affairs.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:35 PM, Anthony Ubah<ubah.tonyiyke at> wrote: Hello Marriam,
The is grossly subjective. I won't comment on your opinion about the former co-chairs. However I want to comment on the election process, which in my own opinion of the last one was a transparent and simple process, which left no one dissatisfied. Putting facts in, you cannot say an online election will always produce candidates below par or inexperienced as you put it. The onus is on the community to vote it candidates that th trust can deliver, and not the opinion from a few.

Kind regards,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 8:29 AM Mirriam <mirriamlauren at> wrote:

Hi Anthony,
Even WG consensus has been tried and tested as a great procedure in the past and you can ask Dewole, Sami, Seun etc.....
As a WG, let us not shy away from the fact that in recent past two well meaning but inexperienced co-chairs who kept getting things very wrong  got selected by voting. Don't get me wrong, voting by ranked choice may be good second option.
The fall back to the board also sounds as a reasonable selection process with involvement of WG if board can float candidates.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:46 AM, Anthony Ubah<ubah.tonyiyke at> wrote: _______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list