Ok, Andrew. But I am not arguing. I hope you read and now understand better from RFC, from Alain and Alan, on Co-Chair role and gauging consensus.
Regards Arnaud Le 26 oct. 2016 19:20, "Andrew Alston" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Arnaud, > > > > I argue that it is there job to **gauge** consensus, if there is no > consensus, then it is the responsibility of the authors to go and find the > consensus or withdraw. > > > > It is not the job of the chairs to push to find that consensus, the > authors of policy need to take responsibility > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Arnaud AMELINA <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 21:56 > *To: *Andrew Alston <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <[email protected]>, Omo Oaiya < > [email protected]>, Dewole Ajao <[email protected]>, General > Discussions of AFRINIC <[email protected]>, sergekbk < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP > review? > > > > I do not agree with your opinion Andrew, since Co-Chaires have the > responsibility to lead the process, they automatically have the > responsibility to ensure its completion, and the only way is to determine > the rough consensus. > > If I stand to your opinion, how do we determine the "large" > number of members approval or rejecting the draft of the Policy? > > Regards > > Arnaud > > > > Le 26 oct. 2016 11:45, "Andrew Alston" <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be > controversial, but this is how I see it. > > > > It is not – and cannot be – the job of the co-chairs to drive a process > towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to > read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus > (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the > proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the > requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion > to withdraw or not). > > > > Why do I say that the co-chair’s cannot strive towards consensus: > > > > To do so implies that the co-chair’s have taken a position on the policy – > and that they should ever do – it compromises neutrality. If the community > by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast > majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair’s to > drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of > finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the > community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should > die as a result. > > > > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair’s to start driving > towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery > slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair’s becomes a moot > point. I don’t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *sergekbk <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 > *To: *Dewole Ajao <[email protected]>, Omo Oaiya <[email protected]>, > General Discussions of AFRINIC <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"AfriNIC RPD MList." <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP > review? > > > > Hello Dewole, > > Don’t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 > and -1 and drive the process to consensus? > > With Regards. > > > > *Serge Ilunga* > > *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>* > > *Skype: sergekbk* > > *R.D.Congo* > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Dewole Ajao <[email protected]> > > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > > To: Omo Oaiya <[email protected]>, General Discussions of AFRINIC < > [email protected]> > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an > existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last > public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the > co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is > however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to > engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or > ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who > CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the > public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy > proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the > feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the > community is (more) amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on > everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward > solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and > -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have > the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to > unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 > and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising > the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability > and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look > at the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/ > 251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic- > service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements > from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy > meetings > 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face > meetings weakening the decision making process. > 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions > expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on > mailing list > > 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. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining “rough consensus”. > > 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 > > - 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 > > 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/ > library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and > no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPD mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
