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

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

Paul Hjul hjul.paul at
Fri Apr 9 10:39:13 UTC 2021

> Hi All,


> Given that we've repeatedly stated that there should be a nominator and a

seconder for all nominations, this means we only really received 3
nominations (3,4,5 below).


> Given that Abulkarim (4) was one of the co-chairs removed by the recall

committee, and there has been controversy around the previous co-chairs, in
my opinion we only really have two candidates.


> And both of these candidates seems to be good choices. From Vincent's

(3) nomination, by Barry:


> "Vincent is an outstanding person for the PDWG as he was the first

co-chair of the same back in the days. we need to bring back the
fundamental values and hence i nominate him"


> I could not agree more about bringing back the fundamentals, and plainly

Vincent has experience in a co-chair position that we desperately need at
this point in time.


> Regarding Darwin (5), I've gone back and read a fair number of his emails

over the last year or so, and Darwin in my opinion has a level head, the
ability to reason and understand as well. I could not find a single
example of him being involved personally in a controversy in spite of him
providing his opinion on a number of topics.


> I would thus like to make two proposals.


> 1. We select the two candidates as above, in my opinion with Vincent in

the two-year tenure and Darwin in the one year tenure. By consensus if


> 2. Given that the next meeting is two months from now, I would like to

propose that we measure these tenures as from "this year" such that the
effective tenures will be one and two years respectively from now, and not
"puppet" and "one year" effectively.


> Kind Regards,

> Jaco

Dear All

I fully support Jaco's proposal which already appears to enjoy consensus
and is ready to put this matter to rest.

The nominations process unfolded and there were three nominees who had been
nominated using the full process (requiring nomination, secondment and
acceptance) for two positions with one nominee have withdrawn (meaning a
removal of the acceptance, so not being a nominee) it stands to reason that
same nominees are appointed/elected unopposed. I am not aware of any
compelling or even remotely important reasons not to proceed on that basis
- appointments are made on an unopposed basis all the time.

The adopting of a course to address term and tenure is very apposite and
will allow a smoother continuation of things. Both nominees concur with the
mechanism proposed and so I cannot conceive of a reason for it not to be
implemented. It is particularly healthy for this WG to be consensus driven
and we have broad consensus which allows this WG to continue.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list