<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 14, 2020, at 15:26 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/08/2020 18:37, Benjamin Investor
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAPHP+tbkkjLiKfB1Z1w+QkGAyZg6w-_vMvfrr9vwPipvq_x=Jw@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div dir="auto" class=""><clip></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAPHP+tbkkjLiKfB1Z1w+QkGAyZg6w-_vMvfrr9vwPipvq_x=Jw@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div dir="auto" class=""> I believe the community needs to find a
permanent solution if we have a problem, but my humble
question to you and the board is that the people that have
joined the mailing list in the last six month are they not
stakeholders in this community? Even if they have joined to
vote as you and the board are suggesting are they still not
stakeholders. And according to the rpm "anyone" can contribute
and at any time. What makes the person who joined 6 years ago
more and has never said a word more qualified than the person
who joined 6 days ago? Yes, I think there is a problem there
but it is not for you or the board to solve this problem as
rightly mentioned by Jordi. What problem are you trying to
solve with the 6 months and other rules set? During the next
election, next year are we going to have an 18 months rule?.
who says that we would be able to have a face to face meeting
next year even if we have a face to face meeting how do we
prevent hairdressers from coming in to vote? Or are we going
to be changing the process all the time? is that a fair way of
dealing with the issue. Let us be realistic here. is your
intention genuine or are we acting a script? Yes, Jordi has a
policy proposal but what assurance do we have that the
proposal would pass and be implemented before next year. As
far as I am concerned, we need to follow the rules in whatever
we do fI not we have giving room for anarchy. The rule you are
trying here is divisive and as seen it was rejected by a
sizable number of people even thou it might be questionable
but we say responses If we agree to use this rule this time
what stops the board from interfering in future elections. We
are not looking at the future implication we are only trying
to solve a short term problem and leaving behind a long term
problem. The problem at hand must be solved by the community
using the laid down process and not imposed by the CEO or the
board. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not all that joined should necessarily be considered stakeholders.
This is crystal clear and there must be something that guarantee
that only those who are really involved are the ones able to
participate on the decision. Having something like what happened in
Kampala is not something to the whole community.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>What happened in Kampala that you find so objectionable? We have two co-chairs that were elected there and have been doing a generally excellent job.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>They have been transparent in their communication and fair in their administration of the policy development process.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Are you objecting to the outcome, or do you have some belief that some of the younger stakeholders (mostly IT students) who showed up should have been disenfranchised?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Please be clear in what, exactly, you mean by “what happened in Kampala”. I was there and while the board election process was a gross display of incompetence and mismanagement, I really don’t take issue with the outcome of the PDP election. If you mean the extent to which the theatrics leading up to the voting were mismanaged and the process manipulation and machinations, then I agree such should not be tolerated again, but I think migrating those to the virtual meeting environment would be an interesting challenge to begin with. Those tactics simply don’t really translate to a virtual meeting.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I do agree that the anomalous level of list subscriptions in July makes a valid case for a June cutoff to avoid a possible attempt at organizational capture.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>