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

[rpd] clarify? - (Fwd) Adhoc Appeal Committee appointment

Noah noah at
Thu Mar 11 09:03:32 UTC 2021

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021, 10:51 Dr Paulos Nyirenda, <paulos at> wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2021 at 21:01, Noah wrote:


> > Ahem...

> >

> > IMHO, the current Appeal Committee which is not fully constituted also

> > has not been following its Terms of Reference.

> >

> > So, I was reading the 18th February minutes of the Appeal Committee

> > meeting chaired by Adam Nelson and noted that whereas the AC was

> > discussing among other things their work related to an appeal ref:

> > Policy Compliance Dashboard and the resignation of fellow AC

> > members.......

> >

> > This Appeal Committee was supposed to actually complete its work on

> > all the appeals by 18th February 2021 as per the timelines it shared

> > with the PDWG, but that was not the case.

> >

> > So my question is, did the Appeal Committee members in their previous

> > meeting violate their own terms of reference as per section 4.4 of the

> > ToR.?


> If I may be allowed to quote an old phrase based on Alexander Pope, "A

> little knowledge is a

> dangerous thing."


> If you read through the minutes of this Appeal Committee on these appeals

> then you will find

> that there was extensive discussion on applying Section 4.4 of the ToR

> when needed. That

> need would have arisen after 18 February 2021.


> So, if you read the minutes that you are refering to then you will see

> that the Appeal

> Committee did realise that it had additional work to do after 18 February

> 2021 but resolved to

> await the direction of the Board following the gagging of the Appeal

> Committee by the Board

> Chair, see Minute 2 second paragraph.


> Had that gagging of the Appeal Committee not been made by the Board Chair,

> the Appeal

> Committee would have requested the Board for more time as Section 4.4 of

> the ToR

> requires.


> So, no, the Appeal Committee did not violate the terms of reference.

> Please read a little more

> to appreciate the whole scene.


> Does this answer the question ?

Its a fact that the timeliness you set for yourselves were not met as of
18th Feb 2021 but you have somewhat answered my question even though
nothing would have stopped the AC from asking the board for additional time
in line with section 4.4 while the AC is also being constituted. That did
not happen and the apparent gagging argument should not be an excuse. What
I have noted is, the board is trying to ensure that the AC is properly
constituted as it was supposed to be in light of resignations of your

The role of the appeal committee is to review the decision of cochairs and
the board must ensure that the AC is constituted with all 5 members who
must contribute to final decisions and not just three or two members only.

It is unacceptable and inappropriate that fewer than 5 decide on appeals
for an AC that is meant to have 5 folks to constitute it as it was

I mean, supposed a member continues to be absent or chooses to be neutral
etc or for some reason is not available, does that mean two members shall
now decide on appeals?

Perhaps its time to look at how to resolve some of this descripancies if at
all they are not clear before we can forge ahead as a PDWG.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list