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

[rpd] Eligibility Criteria for PDWG chairs

Noah noah at
Sun Mar 28 18:23:18 UTC 2021

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 16:40 Wijdane Goubi, <wijdan.goubi at> wrote:



> Regarding the point C, I find it hard to understand the need of having a

> candidate who must have at least 3 years of sufficient past and participative

> experience, which is first and foremost, unfair because being a member for

> 3 years in either AFRINIC or any other RIR does not make you necessarily an

> expert whereas there can be a candidate with less years of experience yet

> with better understating and expertise. That being said, the years of

> experience should be unconsidered when deciding whether the candidate is

> eligible or not.


Years of active participation and interest in the PDP is everything
otherwise we end up with co-chairs who "believe this and believe that" due
to lack of active participation and following up discussions so as to make
informed judgement.

We don't want "believers" but rather folk who make an effort to objectively
find consensus or rough consensus or lack of consensus from working group
discussions and years of experience and participating ensures this.

As for the point D, it is illogical as well, since it also categorize the

> candidates and privilege some of them, as there can be a candidate who have

> not participated in two AFRINIC events or more (face-to-face or virtual) in

> the past three years yet still have both a sufficient awareness and

> proficiency of the CPM as well as an adequate technical knowledge.


Lack of participation should be a disqualification. There is no two ways
around it and we should be honest with each other less we waste everyones
time with potentially incompetent co-chairs.

Moreover, the point G which prohibits the participation of authors of any

> policy proposals currently under discussion is unfair as well because,

> other than the discrimination and differentiation against these authors, it

> is a misjudgment on the part of the community to exclude them just

> because they have a policy proposal currently under discussion.


Its not misjudgement but rather an objective way of ensuring that there is
no subjectivity towards a proposal authored by an apparent co-chair/s.

Ultimately, the main reason behind choosing the vote election over

> selection by consensus is the exigency and the necessity of fairness and

> openness; hence we should make the participation process as fair and open

> as possible in order to give an equal opportunity to everyone


Well we have had situations where no voting was done yet everyone from the
community who was present in the PPM meeting openly selected a co-chair.

The most recent example was when we selectef our former co-chair Dewole in
Gaborone Botswana in 2016 and others in the past.

In any case, using the RPD list as a voter register is unacceptable for
reasons such is pseudo accounts aka sock puppets and potential for ballot
stuffing through multiple subscription like the 170 subscribers towards the
co-chair elections in 2020 and who know how many more as of 2021.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list