On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Seun, > > > You wrote, > > > *SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to > wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before > consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the > Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs > have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of > the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, > myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 > co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a > draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community > a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... > Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to > better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work.* > > *Thanks for acknowledging the issues and your challenges as former > Co-chair. * > SO: I hope you also *READ* my comment within context and i quote the relevant sections below: "...the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus..." The point is that because consensus building is not documented, it makes some parts of the community (or a community member) often cry foul on the decision of the Co-Chair and that is the challenge. Perhaps, I should note that AFRINIC is not the only RIR that doesn't have a consensus building document and while consensus building isn't really documented within AFRINIC the Co-Chairs do make attempt to gauge consensus(+rough) in a manner similar to that of the IETF. Nevertheless, due to the uniqueness of our community I think it may be a good thing to document even though irrespective of what we finally put on paper, we still require that the community have faith and trust in their elected Co-Chairs as that can't be documented. > * Can you please provide links to the document or discussion in archive?* > SO: I do not know what the current status of the document is but here is the url to the version on my drive which may/may not be the latest version.: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOQTSXAr_HzKP8jqrOYKESzyubA680JUsV57yBmfBNU/edit?usp=sharing Regards > > *Thank you,* > > > Marcus > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Seun Ojedeji <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:36:36 PM > *To:* Omo Oaiya > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC RPD MList. > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Hello, > > Speaking on my personal behalf and as a former Co-Chair of PDWG, do find a > few comments inline: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Omo Oaiya <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed >> #3 and #4. >> >> The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the >> "administrative functions” of the group. >> >> - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. >> > SO: The overall "administrative" roles and responsibilities of the > co-chairs can be found at the PDWG homepage. Does it need to be further > broken down than it currently is or does it need to be expanded? I will > leave that to the community to discuss and determine. I put the current > roles below: > > *Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs* > > - Determining whether there is consensus during open policy > discussions. > - Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings. > - Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call). > - Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public > policy meetings to the Board of Directors. > > ref: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > >> - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election >> mechanism. >> > SO: Hmm...for every election/selection, there has always been > election/selection criteria[1]. Although the nomcom leads this process, a > quick look at the Bylaw seem to imply that nomcom scope is within > Board/Board related elections alone[2] (that may also be something to fix). > However the Bylaw was clear on the fact that the Election committee > coordinates all election processes[3] which I believe includes that of the > Co-Chairs. > > The question I think the community may need to address is whether the > current criteria set is sufficient, if not, should the community recommend > more criteria to nomcom or an AFRINIC member propose hard-coding a > requirement into the Bylaw which must then be adhered to by nomcom in > addition to their own criteria. > >> - It also did not describe the process for determining “rough consensus”. >> >> > SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to > wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before > consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the > Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs > have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of > the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, > myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 > co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a > draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community > a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... > Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to > better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work. > >> As a result, we have seen: >> >> - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet >> Number Resource management. >> >> - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing >> list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions. >> > SO: This is indeed one of the things Co-Chairs find challenging; the > current PDP requires that comments on the list and that of the face 2 face > should be the basis for checking consensus to last call. It would indeed be > helpful if all comments that comes in on the list are addressed (as much as > possible) by the author(s) and it will also be good if people use the > mailing list to raise their concerns as much as possible. However that is > usually not the case, hence the challenge. While the Co-Chairs moderation > may not have been perfect (depending on our individual standards). I think > it would also be good to recognise that we are in a very unique community > and environment where effective moderation is not just by skills alone but > also by Grace ;-) > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the >> process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling >> progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and >> frustration >> > SO: I am not sure what the above means but I believe "draft policies" > always have a consensus status declared at the end of the PPM. Though yes i > understand the frustration it could cause if the expectation is different > from what the co-chairs declared. That said, I believe that is why we have > section 7 of the PDP which can be used to resolve these issues when they > arise. > >> The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another >> easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on >> proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as >> per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/lib >> rary/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and >> no action from the working group co-chairs. >> > SO: The current PDP "DOES NOT" permit the co-chairs to discard a proposed > policy within 12months of the proposal/edits of such policy, irrespective > of whether there is comment or not. However Co-Chairs makes effort to > encourage the author(s) to voluntarily withdraw their proposals having > observed the community's stand/direction about it. > > > Regards > 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3 > 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8 > 3. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9 > >> **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** >> >> - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? >> >> - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if >> yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? >> >> -Omo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt > email: <http://goog_1872880453>[email protected] > <[email protected]>* > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[email protected] <[email protected]>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
