<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 Feb 21, 2021, at 2:13 AM, Sylvain Baya <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" class="">abscoco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Dear PDWG,</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Hope Y'all are safe and well!</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 08:49, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> a écrit :</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">> [...]</div><div dir="auto" class="">>></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> ...as you prefer *election* as the *selection* model to be used; the PDWG </div><div dir="auto" class="">> should then agree on at least few *criteria* to ensure that we end up with </div><div dir="auto" class="">> (i) a reasonable *limited* number of (ii) *sufficiently* capable </div><div dir="auto" class="">> candidates. </div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> Are you agreeing to these needs?</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> I don’t agree that the number of candidates needs to be “a reasonable </div><div dir="auto" class="">> *limited* number”. </div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Hi Owen,</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks for your email.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Brother, when we decide to define a set of *criteria* we'll </div><div dir="auto" class="">endeniably end-up with at least a *virtual* limitation which </div><div dir="auto" class="">could prevent someones to become candidates. There is no *real* limitation </div><div dir="auto" class="">on the number of candidates, </div><div dir="auto" class="">in the ongoing process [1] through the PDWG.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>We already have criteria… They are specified in the CPM.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The other criteria under discussion cannot be applied to prevent someone from</div><div>running in the election. Voters are (individually) free to use any proposed</div><div>criteria (or not) as they decide who to vote for.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> If we get 150 candidates that are sufficiently capable and meet the </div><div dir="auto" class="">> criteria specified in the PDP, then so be it. </div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...inside the PDP version [2] in use?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>There is one PDP at any given time… The current one is enshrined in the</div><div>most recent version of the CPM and will apply until amended by consensus</div><div>of this group and ratified by the board.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">...BtW, i have no personal concern about, even if i understand </div><div dir="auto" class="">that if such situation occurs (which is not an option to </div><div dir="auto" class="">consider more, due to the stats we know) it could become </div><div dir="auto" class="">more difficult to apply certain models of *selection* [3]. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>A ranked choice vote can be applied to any number of candidates, especially</div><div>when done electronically. The math required to count the votes is quite simple</div><div>and the consolidation process is a very simple algorithm for any computer</div><div>to handle.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">That is why this [4] proposition of model of *selection* </div><div dir="auto" class="">has been, also, proposed that way:</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">• [A] a selection through rough consensus [...] After prospects do </div><div dir="auto" class="">volunteer;</div><div dir="auto" class="">• [B] a selection based on ranking voting [...] if more than 2 volunteers,</div><div dir="auto" class="">then discussions;</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Unless there are more than 2 candidates, then ranked choice voting and</div><div>consensus have no difference. Either case would require affirmation of</div><div>more than 50% of the electorate for the candidates.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Ranked choice voting would be done online as well, same as [C] below.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">• [C] a selection based on an election (online) as usual [...] if more</div><div dir="auto" class="">than 2 candidates and discussions stalemate;</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Is [C] a proposal for a first-past-the-post style election conducted online?</div><div>It’s unclear to me because you consistently state it as if the difference</div><div>between [B] and [C] relates to “on-line” or not, which is not true. Any</div><div>election we are likely to have on any timely basis will be on-line.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">• [D] a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ([...]);</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This would violate the PDP.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">• [E] any other possibility?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>[A] through [C] are arguably within the PDP. [D] is not and [E] is unlikely</div><div>to come up with something that is that wouldn’t be some subset or minor</div><div>deviation of [A] through [C].</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Indeed, [A] is a minor deviation of [B] in a limited circumstance.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> This is yet another reason I favor ranked choice voting. Given Y </div><div dir="auto" class="">> candidates, people can rank the top X candidates in their order of </div><div dir="auto" class="">> preference where X≤Y and avoid voting for anyone they consider an </div><div dir="auto" class="">> unacceptable candidate. Then candidates with the least votes are </div><div dir="auto" class="">> eliminated, transferring the votes they received to the next preference of </div><div dir="auto" class="">> each voter until we have one candidate with more than 50% of the total vote </div><div dir="auto" class="">> who gets the longer term. Then the candidate with the next highest number </div><div dir="auto" class="">> of votes gets the shorter term.</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> Simple, clean, and very effective at identifying candidates acceptable to </div><div dir="auto" class="">> the community at large, regardless of the number of candidates.</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...let's see if your choice [5] will win through this part of </div><div dir="auto" class="">the process [1].</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Not entirely clear on your meaning here.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> Hence, making a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair is </div><div dir="auto" class="">>> going to put obstacles and barriers in front of both voters and candidates. </div><div dir="auto" class="">>></div><div dir="auto" class="">>> Therefore, I absolutely don’t go along with the view of putting </div><div dir="auto" class="">>> restrictions on candidates no matter what hardships we went through during </div><div dir="auto" class="">>> the time of the previous co-chairs otherwise it might lead us to </div><div dir="auto" class="">>> misjudgments and discrimination.</div><div dir="auto" class="">>></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> ...i'm sure we can also try to go ahead without </div><div dir="auto" class="">> any *criteria* but i can't personally encourage </div><div dir="auto" class="">> the PDWG to follow that path.</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> We should seek qualified co-chairs, but qualified should be in the </div><div dir="auto" class="">> judgment of the electorate. We should not abdicate this authority to some </div><div dir="auto" class="">> arbitrary group enforcing some set of subjective criteria.</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks for supporting this [5] initiative, which could become </div><div dir="auto" class="">a formal DPP afterwards.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Since what I have proposed is already in compliance with the PDP, the only</div><div>need to create a DPP would be if we wanted to constrain or force future</div><div>elections to be conducted by ranked-choice voting. While I would not oppose</div><div>such an initiative, I’m also not sure it is necessary.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">__</div><div dir="auto" class="">[1]: Overview of the ongoing processus</div><div dir="auto" class=""><<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html</a>></div><div dir="auto" class="">[2]: <<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP" class="">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP</a>></div><div dir="auto" class="">[3]: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html</a>></div><div dir="auto" class="">[4]: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html</a>></div><div dir="auto" class="">[5]: Action3|</div><div dir="auto" class=""><<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html</a>></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Shalom,</div><div dir="auto" class="">--sb.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> Owen</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div dir="auto" class="">> [...]</div><div dir="auto" class="">></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>
<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">--<br class="">Best Regards !<br class="">__<br class="">baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<<a href="http://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki" class="">www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki</a>><br class="">Subscribe to Mailing List: <<a href="http://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/" class="">lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/</a>><br class="">__<br class="">#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»<br class="">#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement<br class="">«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)<br class=""><br class="">
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>