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

[rpd] Selection of PDP co-chairs - Secretariat recap & lessons learnt - English

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Tue Apr 13 09:57:00 UTC 2021

[Apologies for the lengthy response - but this behaviour is really unacceptable.]


I have tried to remain out of the petty squabbles relating to the selection of co-chairs. However your mail below has provoked a strong reaction and I think is out of line.

This is your second attack on the liaison in as many days and I think it is time to stop with personal attacks on the policy liaison or your unfounded conspiracy theories.

> On 13 Apr 2021, at 09:17, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at> wrote:


> Dear AFRINIC Policy Liaison,


> Thank you for your email, however I am surprised by your lack of honesty, sincerity and attempt to colour the face of the public with some of the content of your supposed "recap and lesson learnt". Is this a recap or another attempt to justify the actions of some people?.


> I believe any AFRINIC staff and particularly the PDWG liaison officer are paid to provide an objective and unbiased opinion however durring my time as Co- chair and in recent days I have seen a high level of bias and an attempt to swing things in a particular direction by some AFRINIC staff.


This is out of order and I think you should apologise! This is a serious allegation and you provide no justification.

> Whenever we take actions as Co-chairs that you in a way disagree with you find a way to always ask us for precidence or more justification which I have always dig the archives for and I always provide precidence to you and justified all my actions even when I feel it's not needed.

This is a damning admission by a former co-chair. The policy liaison tried to guide you by suggesting you refer back to the CPM or precedent. Instead you went your own way and “justified all [your] actions” and this led to your recall.

Instead of learning from the report of the recall committee, you are now blaming the liaison for your own shortcomings.


> I hope you would also justify and provide precedence to all these your actions in recent days while acting as the secretariat.


> You clearly have valid objections to your actions yet to went ahead to fully implement them. I wonder what you call this? I remember one of your arguments to us then that if a process is being challenged you have to stop and take no further actions. Yes, I disagreed with you then but I was thinking you would do same now.

This again indicates your misunderstanding of rough consensus. The key point is that all *valid objections* have been addressed. The so-called “objections” you reference were not valid - as people were asking for an election when there were only two qualifying candidates and all other candidates were disqualified due to their own actions (or inactions) or withdrew.


> More importantly in your summary you mentioned consensus in the choice of your self appointed Co-chairs.

This personal attack is unwarranted.

> BECAUSE we clearly have numerous emails saying that they disagree and you still called it a consensus choice in your 'recap'. In fact you made no attempt to make a meaningful reference to those objections. I wonder what your definition of consensus is?. Then you always ask that we include objections in our summary which we always do cos it was the right thing to do. Even dou, what we judged then was not a consensus but rough concensus.

Again you show a clear misunderstanding of rough consensus.


> While I disagree with any fake registrations on the mailing list, I am surprised that you are attempting to link the surge with some announcements on the mailing list. Do you consider any other reason? Even if the IPs is from one household. How many household have you ever seen only one person living there or is it now a crime for multiple people in an household to join the mailing list?. I just don't understand your arguments here. You even went further to even link an email with an opinion. What are you trying to do here? This to me seams like an attempt to help some people to manipulate the situation in there favour and this is not your job in anyway. This I/we clearly observed when I was co-chair and I mentioned it to you on few occasions directly or via email.

Another example of justifications of attempted manipulation and a personal attack that has no place on this list or in this community!


> Finally, below is the content of my email to you please tell me where I mention that my CV was shared "without my permission"

> I made it clear that I prepared the CV and gave it out the CV, only that I wasn't told that it was meant for the AFRINIC Co-chair position. The CV was tailored for something else in mind. CV's are tailored towards a particular position to show competence in an area specific to that position.

> You should have used my exact wordings to avoid this type of situation and avoid anyone taking offence.

I think the language used, while not to your liking, is not inaccurate. If it was prepared and shared “for something else in mind” then it was used here without your permission quod est demonstrandum.

You have a voice on this mailing list and you could have set the record straight when you refused your nomination, rather than now picking nits and attacking the liaison.


> I believe and see this as a deliberate to embarrass me and those who nominated me hence I need to point it out clearly

Again, you make an outlandish claim which is just NOT supported by the facts.



> My humble advice is that Policy Liaison Officers should totally avoid being biased and stay professional. It is not your job to judge people you are to only state facts and you need to state the fact as it was without any opinion and allow the community to decide. You can also be part of the community but don't do that as AFRINIC staff. It is a clear abuse.

Sir - I find this personal attack unwarranted! There is nothing that you have stated in your mail that indicates any impropriety on the part of the policy liaison.

Instead Sir, it is you who have been found (by an impartial recall committee) to have behaved in an unprofessional manner and to have failed this community.

Trying to blame your own failings on a staff member, who will find it difficult to defend themselves on the list, is the action of a bully and unacceptable.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list