[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Matt Griswold]

* Chris Phillips <cphillips at aptient.com> [151115 17:20 -0800]:
> Begs the question, what defines a highly-active member?  And of which 
> community, peering in general or within PeeringDB itself?
Right, which is why we axed giving admins special membership to begin
with.

In this case, I believe he was referring to the PeeringDB community,
since Florian does support tickets and helps out a lot.

> 
> On 11/15/2015 3:28 PM, Chris Malayter wrote:
> > I agree with Matt.  There’s no reason to silence a highly active
> >   member of the community.
> >
> > -Chris
> >  
> >> On Nov 15, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I read it as (and did when we were making it) a corporation may be
> >>   a member in addition to an individual. Not a huge deal and I
> >>   agree that we shouldn't change any language now, but thought it
> >>   should be brought up for future board consideration.
> >>
> >> In cases like this, where Florian isn't currently at an
> >>   organization yet retains his account because he's an admin and
> >>   does tickets, I think he should still have a voice in any
> >>   election.
> >>
> >>
> >> * Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> [151115 18:04 +0000]:  
> >>> Keeping in mind article 2 of:
> >>>
> >>>   https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf
> >>>
> >>> The intention as written is that there is one class of members and
> >>>   that class consists of organizations, each with a single vote.
> >>>
> >>> - 2.2 Qualifications for Membership.
> >>>    - A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or
> >>>   other legal business entity may be a Member of the Corporation.
> >>>   Membership is determined by having both an active PeeringDB.com
> >>>   account and an individual representative or role subscription to
> >>>   the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:
> >>>
> >>>      http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi­bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb­gov
> >>>
> >>>    - Members may have such other qualifications as the Board may
> >>>   prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws.
> >>>
> >>> So the first part of 2.2 says what "may" be a member, and then
> >>>   says that from that pool of possible members, that both an
> >>>   active PeeringDB.com account is needed, along with there being a
> >>>   representative (individual or role) subscription to this pdb-gov
> >>>   list.
> >>>
> >>> Implicit by the first sentence is that "active PeeringDB.com
> >>>   account" in the second sentence refers to organizational, not
> >>>   individual, PeeringDB.com accounts.
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe it would be wise to revise the draft documents
> >>>   during the present election, but once the election is over, the
> >>>   initial board (or subsequent board or member meeting) may want
> >>>   to clarify that second sentence by inserting the word
> >>>   "organizational" between "active" and "PeeringDB.com account",
> >>>   but first I'd be curious to know if that was the source of
> >>>   confusion.
> >>>
> >>> Did you or Matt think that a person with an individual PeeringDB
> >>> account, subscribed to this pdb-gov list, would be sufficient to
> >>> qualify for membership, based on that second sentence of 2.2?
> >>>
> >>> In addition to, or instead of, the clarification idea above, a
> >>>   future board or member meeting could certainly revise the
> >>>   definition of membership to be more inclusive, such as by
> >>>   creating a category of membership eligibility for active
> >>>   PeeringDB admins.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Florian Hibler wrote:  
> >>>> Good morning pdb-gov,
> >>>> after my attempt to register for voting on the PDB board
> >>>>   yesterday, I figured out, that I am (according to the bylaws,
> >>>>   as Chris told me), not eligible to vote, as I am not
> >>>>   representing an org with a PeeringDB entry at the moment.
> >>>>   Nethertheless I am actively involved into PDB and according to
> >>>>   Matt Griswold I should be entitled to vote.
> >>>>
> >>>> The paragraph which excludes me from voting is according to Chris
> >>>>   the following in the bylaws
> >>>> (https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf):
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.2 Qualifications for Membership:
> >>>> "A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other
> >>>>   legal business entity may be a Member of the Corporation.
> >>>>   Membership is determined by having both an active PeeringDB.com
> >>>>   account and an individual representative or role subscription
> >>>>   to the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:
> >>>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-­bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb­-gov
> >>>> Members may have such other qualifications as the Board may
> >>>>   prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws."
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt sees it a bit different, so we decided to bring the topic up
> >>>>   here and see what other people think about it. Your input is
> >>>>   highly appreciated and looking very much forward to hear from
> >>>>   you on this topic!
> >>>>
> >>>> Bests,
> >>>> Florian
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Florian Hibler <fhibler at peeringdb.com>
> >>>> PeeringDB Administrator  
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pdb-gov mailing list
> >> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> >> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov  
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov