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

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

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Fri Apr 9 10:15:25 UTC 2021

Hi Paschal

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 11:51, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at> wrote:


> I do agree deadlines are for a reason. Although there is a controversy surrounding the nominations I don't think it voids the capability of the candidates.

I agree that the invalidity of the nomination does not void their capability fo the candidates. However, capability is not a reason to ignore agreed process or published timelines.

> There is an insinuation here that based on the nominnation controversy the candidates are not capable or lack the quality to be efficient if allowed to stand and elected, I beg to differ.

However I do think it displays very poor judgement by both of them to rely on purported nominations by persons with whom they had not directly engaged and instead they chose to work through a facilitator to “broker” their nominations. I am not sure this WG can afford a chair who displays poor judgement.

> Furthermore a lot has happened that is not PDP compliant right from the onset of criteria design. It's as if conclusions are made on perceptions rather what the rules say.


I don’t see how you can argue for rules to be applied when you want and then abandoned when candidates do not comply with published process (a nominator and seconder must nominate and second a nominee - it does not allow for nominations without the consent of the nominator) or published timelines.

I hope both will stand for positions again - but this time will approach members directly for a nomination and not rely on a facilitator. Poor judgement can improve with experience and I trust this will be a positive learning experience for them both.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list