[rpd] AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair Selection Timeframe

Fri Apr 29 10:10:08 UTC 2022

Dear Gregoire,

Let us not be interpreting the CPM upside. What we know is that 
selection should be at PPM, and mailing list is not PPM. Therefore the 
CPM forbids any other method of selection until the PPM, which can be 
tenured or temporary.

It is also good if we learn to listen and consider each other as we go 
along.

Simply

Daniel

On 28/04/2022 19:37, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD wrote:
>
>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 1:16 PM, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 05:02 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hummm ! my comments inline
>>>
>>> Le lun. 25 avr. 2022 à 13:27, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE 
>>> <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> a écrit :
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>     I have tried as much as possible not to make a comment but it
>>>     seems I have to comment on this as I would also be making a
>>>     comment on the other impunity the board leadership have decided
>>>     to plunge AFRINIC into recently.
>>>     1.  This timeline is not acceptable because I don't know how
>>>     Co-chairs would emerge via the use of the mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>>> We keep repeating ourselves.
>>>
>>> You do know how Policy discussions and decisions are made on the ML, 
>>> but somehow you do not know how the selection of Co-chairs to take 
>>> on the administrative  support role of the Working Group, happens on 
>>> the same mailinglist.
>>
>> The PDP provides for this when it comes to policies… It makes no 
>> allowance for it in regards to the selection of co-chairs.
>
> The PDP only requests that cochairs are « chosen » by the community 
> during the PPM.
>
> The PDP does not indicate how, which is left to the WG to decide by 
> Consensus. There is a track record of the PDP in the past at multiple 
> occasions appointing its Co-chairs by consensus.
>
> So the PDP does not forbidden selection of cochair by consensus 
> through the ML with confirmation at the upcoming PPM.
>
> I can see some evolution in your thoughts. Last time this was 
> discussed, you said this was not doable as selection of cochair is not 
> discussion on policy proposal.
>
> Now you are concerned by it not been allowed by the PDP.
>
>>
>> I believe this is his point, though he is perhaps being too polite in 
>> how he expresses it…
>>
>> Attempting to select co-chairs on the mailing list is a violation of 
>> the terms in the CPM. If we want to change the selection process, 
>> then we should have a policy proposal to do so and let the community 
>> debate, discuss, and ultimately come to consensus (or not) around it. 
>> Unless and until that happens, the mechanism for selecting co-chairs 
>> should not be altered ad hoc.
>
> What selection process are you referring to?
>
> There are a couple of proposal to define one which you and others opposed.
>
> Until now, we have been running with a process defined by board and 
> endorsed by the WG.
>
>>
>>>     It was tried last time what we ended up having are impostors.
>>>
>>>
>>> Impostors ?  These two interim co-chairs are respectable community 
>>> members with proven reputation and expertise who have done a great 
>>> service so far and  I am sure, WG participants would want them to 
>>> continue.
>>
>> Clearly there are multiple perspectives on this. One person’s idea of 
>> a “great service” is another person’s idea of tremendous disservice. 
>> FWIW, I am neither impressed, nor angered by the performance of the 
>> current co-chairs. There are things they could have done better, 
>> there are things they could have done worse.
>>
>>>     Two people who claimed they emerged as consensus candidates when
>>>     some others on the mailing did not agree.  I see no consensus in
>>>     the process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like you still have a problem with understanding “consensus”
>>>
>>> Do “objections” mean de facto ”no consensus”?
>>
>> Technically, yes, that is the definition of consensus. Especially 
>> when many of those objections went unaddressed.
>
> It depends on who determines that an objection is unaddressed and 
> remain opened.
>
> « Objections are to be addressed and not necessary accommodated. »
>
> Again, if the objection is only that the choice is not ideal but is 
> otherwise acceptable, such a compromise is fine.
>
>>
>>>     Then I object to criteria J. I see no reason for this.
>>>     Endorsement from resource members shows some form of affiliation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Affiliation to who? Resource members are the main stakeholders here, 
>>> accountable to the global community.
>>>
>>> The community has witnessed sponsored Co-chairs before who were 
>>> supposed to be participating as individuals without motives.
>>
>> The problem you have here is that criteria J encourages and arguably 
>> requires such sponsorship. It sounds to me like you are both arguing 
>> against criteria J.
>> FWIW, I agree, criteria J is a bad idea in general.
>
> I am actually in support. « J » limits the risks to get a rogue 
> incompetent co-chair.
>
> If the endorsement turns into the sponsorship we’ve seen in the past, 
> it will be easily known and dealt with.
>
> BTW: AFAIK, Resource Members POCs or affiliated are accepted as candidate.
>
>>
>>>     co-chairs are not expected to be endorsed this way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who says so ?  Even though resources members are also part of the 
>>> community, they are the direct affected parties by policies and 
>>> decisions made by the PDP.
>>
>> Well, for one, it’s not part of the process as described in the CPM.
>>
>>> As a known and well organised stakeholders, I see nothing wrong with 
>>> them endorsing co-chairs or even endorsing draft policy proposals.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with them endorsing.
>>
>> What is being argued here is not their ability to endorse. What is 
>> being argued is that such endorsement is a condition of eligibility 
>> to serve as a co-chair.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20220429/c5e9c63a/attachment-0001.html>