[rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs closed & Way forward

[Noah]

Hi Mike

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, 12:20 Mike Silber, <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:


> Thanks for the explanation Paul

>

> While I appreciate your feedback, this raises further questions:

>

>

>    - can an invalid nomination be remedied as you are now suggesting?

>    This is not a case of an error (such as a typo) being corrected, but a key

>    requirement that was irregular. I am not sure that we can allow a nominator

>    to be swapped out like this when it turns out the nomination was invalid?

>

>

Folks had enough time to find suitable nominator and seconder known to
them. It turns out some of the nominees used fraudulent nominator. This
speaks a lot about the nominees and we as a WG need to take this stuff
serious when folks are dishonest.



>    - what does this say about the motivation that was included in the

>    nomination? Was this written by the purported nominator or by the nominee

>    or someone else? What does that say about the nomination?

>

>

If a nominator denies ever supporting a nominee and even asks the
secretariat to remove the nominator details due to privacy concerns, it
means that they as purported nominator never wrote the said motivation for
the said candidate and as such it was someone else. That level of
dishonesty can not be tolerated by the WG.



>    - what about the requirement for the nomination to be seconded?

>

>

This was also lacking on those purported nomination applications yet very
important which is why the application forms had such a requirement.



>    - the process is silent on a member’s ability to nominate more than

>    one candidate.

>

>

While the nomination is silent,  a single members attempt to nominate two
different candidates for the same co-chair position leaves a bad test in my
mouth and must be rejected.



>    - It seems rather strange for a single nominator to make multiple

>    nominations.

>

>

Indeed and we as a WG must reject any signs of a potential capture of the
PDP.



>    - Certainly something to be covered in a process improvement. Possibly

>    a question best left to the election process.

>

>

Certainly just like the requirement that a nominee, nominator and seconder
can not be from the same Organizational and I remember seeing one of the
application had the nominee and nominator from the same Org.


Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/cea3dc10/attachment.html>