[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: afrinic-rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] Criteria for Eligibility or Selection of PDWG Co-Chairs
From: Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd () afrinic ! net>
Date: 2021-02-24 0:53:12
Message-ID: DB609906-4F7C-4AE3-AC78-758039EB3E9D () delong ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
> On Feb 21, 2021, at 2:13 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> Hope Y'all are safe and well!
>
> Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 08:49, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com \
> <mailto:owen@delong.com>> a écrit :
> > [...]
> > >
> >
> > ...as you prefer *election* as the *selection* model to be used; the PDWG
> > should then agree on at least few *criteria* to ensure that we end up with
> > (i) a reasonable *limited* number of (ii) *sufficiently* capable
> > candidates.
> >
> > Are you agreeing to these needs?
> >
> > I don't agree that the number of candidates needs to be "a reasonable
> > *limited* number".
> >
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> Brother, when we decide to define a set of *criteria* we'll
> endeniably end-up with at least a *virtual* limitation which
> could prevent someones to become candidates. There is no *real* limitation
> on the number of candidates,
> in the ongoing process [1] through the PDWG.
We already have criteria… They are specified in the CPM.
The other criteria under discussion cannot be applied to prevent someone from
running in the election. Voters are (individually) free to use any proposed
criteria (or not) as they decide who to vote for.
>
> >
> > If we get 150 candidates that are sufficiently capable and meet the
> > criteria specified in the PDP, then so be it.
> >
>
> ...inside the PDP version [2] in use?
There is one PDP at any given time… The current one is enshrined in the
most recent version of the CPM and will apply until amended by consensus
of this group and ratified by the board.
> ...BtW, i have no personal concern about, even if i understand
> that if such situation occurs (which is not an option to
> consider more, due to the stats we know) it could become
> more difficult to apply certain models of *selection* [3].
A ranked choice vote can be applied to any number of candidates, especially
when done electronically. The math required to count the votes is quite simple
and the consolidation process is a very simple algorithm for any computer
to handle.
> That is why this [4] proposition of model of *selection*
> has been, also, proposed that way:
>
> • [A] a selection through rough consensus [...] After prospects do
> volunteer;
> • [B] a selection based on ranking voting [...] if more than 2 volunteers,
> then discussions;
Unless there are more than 2 candidates, then ranked choice voting and
consensus have no difference. Either case would require affirmation of
more than 50% of the electorate for the candidates.
Ranked choice voting would be done online as well, same as [C] below.
> • [C] a selection based on an election (online) as usual [...] if more
> than 2 candidates and discussions stalemate;
Is [C] a proposal for a first-past-the-post style election conducted online?
It's unclear to me because you consistently state it as if the difference
between [B] and [C] relates to "on-line" or not, which is not true. Any
election we are likely to have on any timely basis will be on-line.
> • [D] a selection inside a group of selectees based on criteria ([...]);
This would violate the PDP.
> • [E] any other possibility?
[A] through [C] are arguably within the PDP. [D] is not and [E] is unlikely
to come up with something that is that wouldn't be some subset or minor
deviation of [A] through [C].
Indeed, [A] is a minor deviation of [B] in a limited circumstance.
>
> >
> > This is yet another reason I favor ranked choice voting. Given Y
> > candidates, people can rank the top X candidates in their order of
> > preference where X≤Y and avoid voting for anyone they consider an
> > unacceptable candidate. Then candidates with the least votes are
> > eliminated, transferring the votes they received to the next preference of
> > each voter until we have one candidate with more than 50% of the total vote
> > who gets the longer term. Then the candidate with the next highest number
> > of votes gets the shorter term.
> >
> > Simple, clean, and very effective at identifying candidates acceptable to
> > the community at large, regardless of the number of candidates.
> >
>
> ...let's see if your choice [5] will win through this part of
> the process [1].
Not entirely clear on your meaning here.
>
> >
> > Hence, making a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair is
> > > going to put obstacles and barriers in front of both voters and candidates.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I absolutely don't go along with the view of putting
> > > restrictions on candidates no matter what hardships we went through during
> > > the time of the previous co-chairs otherwise it might lead us to
> > > misjudgments and discrimination.
> > >
> >
> > ...i'm sure we can also try to go ahead without
> > any *criteria* but i can't personally encourage
> > the PDWG to follow that path.
> >
> > We should seek qualified co-chairs, but qualified should be in the
> > judgment of the electorate. We should not abdicate this authority to some
> > arbitrary group enforcing some set of subjective criteria.
> >
>
> Thanks for supporting this [5] initiative, which could become
> a formal DPP afterwards.
Since what I have proposed is already in compliance with the PDP, the only
need to create a DPP would be if we wanted to constrain or force future
elections to be conducted by ranked-choice voting. While I would not oppose
such an initiative, I'm also not sure it is necessary.
Owen
> __
> [1]: Overview of the ongoing processus
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012542.html>> [2]: \
> <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>> \
> [3]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012490.html>> [4]: \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012504.html>> [5]: Action3|
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012478.html>>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Best Regards !
> __
> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki \
> <http://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>> Subscribe to Mailing List: \
> <lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/ \
> <http://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>> __
> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33 «Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ \
> soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬! » ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de \
> nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d'eau, \
> ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU! »(#Psaumes42:2)
[Attachment #5 (unknown)]
<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>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic