Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures - Draft03
noah at neo.co.tz
Tue Nov 16 20:33:39 UTC 2021
Thanks for your feedback. Just to quickly point out that;
- physical meetings are already happening in most parts of the world with
uptakes on vaccines.
- We propose PWDG selection by consensus while giving more options to the
WG in terms of the voting college of past leaders within the WG.
- Since the role is voluntary, in case of a tie, the two volunteers can
toss a coin :-)
neo - network engineering and operations
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:43 AM Taiwo Oye <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>
> Dear authors,
> Kudos on the hard work carried out in bringing out this policy proposal.
> I think some aspects of this policy proposal needs to be
> rewritten/reviewed or maybe it could just be a bit of clarification needed.
> - a clause in section 3.3.3 as stated below states that a candidate for
> the co-chair position must have attended Atleast one meeting in person over
> three years to qualify for this position.
> In the era of Covid it is possible that in person meeting might not come
> back or might take a few more years. If this policy gets ratified as it is.
> It disqualifies everybody from contesting for this position.
> It should be noted that “in person” was further defined in future text in
> the proposal as physical presence in meeting.
> *Candidates for the co-chair’s position should be known as active
> participants on the working group mailing list with good experience with
> the AFRINIC policy development process, and must have attended at least two
> (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings of which one must be in person, during
> the last 3 years*.
> - In the same 3.3.3. There is a clause there that I think can leave a
> vacuum In d pdp process.
> *If at least one nomination is received by the closing date, the
> appointment process starts. The appointment must be held at the upcoming
> Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the agenda. Those present at the
> session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among
> the candidates who shall take the available position. The remaining chair
> will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group
> finds itself without a co-chair, AFRINIC CEO will lead the consensus
> process.If only one candidate is being evaluated, the lack of consensus
> must declare the seat vacant. The board of directors shall appoint interim
> co-chair within two weeks after the PPM. The Interim co-chair will act up
> to the appointment of the new co-chair.*
> Since the co-chair selection process is to take place in meeting, In the
> event that one nomination is received, with the CEO leading the consensus
> process to determine the next co-chair and there is lack of consensus,
> there is no stated guideline as to who chairs that current ongoing PPM.
> - in the same 3.3.3, there is a voting process that doesn’t involve the
> entire WG stipulated.
> *If no consensus can be reached and more than one candidate is being
> evaluated, then an online secret ballot to appoint the new co-chair will be
> held within two weeks after the PPM. The secret ballot shall be opened to
> past PDPWG co-chairs, past board of directors chairs and past CEOs who
> completed at least one term and have not been recalled. Those who served in
> multiple positions shall have one vote. Votes and counting shall be
> conducted using a ranked preferential voting method otherwise known as IRV.
> The winner of the secret ballot will become the new co-chair.*
> Ithink it is awkward atleast that a voting process is proposed but the
> entire community is not allowed to exercise their franchise as community
> - section 3.3.3 discusses a co-chair selection process that involves
> ! consensus determination in meeting
> ! A reroute back to voting (which the entire community can not
> participate) if consensus is not determined
> ! And a clause (that I don’t seem to understand) that asks one candidate
> that has passed through these rigorous steps above to willingly step down
> if there is a tie in d voting process.
> I honestly think this process is stressful and too complicated to say the
> - in section 3.3.8
> *If both co-chairs can’t participate in a meeting, the working group shall
> appoint one (1) person temporarily to lead the session. If the working
> group cannot appoint a temporary chair, the board of directors shall
> appoint a temporary chair. If the board fails to appoint a temporary chair,
> the meeting shall be adjourned*.
> Community members invest time and money to attend meetings virtually or
> physically. I do not think it is best to have a clause that can possibly
> adjourn a meeting that travels, permission from work, preparation for event
> must have taken place by community members.
> Kind regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD