[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

Chris Malayter mustang at peeringdb.com
Wed Nov 18 11:59:45 PST 2015 

Agree on the one person/one vote.

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Golding <dgolding at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm with Steve here. I don't like that involved individuals don't get a voice. But changing the rules in the middle of an election is worse. 
> 
> Also, to ponder - if the rule is to keep only one person per org to have a vote, what's to keep multiples from an org from voting as individuals? Also, did we anticipate the case where people get multiple votes because they are multiple orgs?
> 
> After this election, I think we should strong consider one person/one vote. Otherwise, its just a mess.
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Monday, November 16, 2015, Steve Feldman <steven.feldman at cbsinteractive.com> wrote:
> After reviewing the bylaws, I agree with this view.
> 
> Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are unambiguously clear that only business entities may be members, and only representatives of members are entitled to cast votes.
> 
> While I think we can agree that this leads to a regrettable effect in this case, it's too late to change the rules for this election.  Doing so could easily give the appearance of impropriety.
> 
> The incoming board has the authority and ought to address this and a few other issues I see in the bylaws (especially clarifying the affiliation rules) well in advance of the next election.
> 
>      Steve
> 
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Dave Temkin <dave at temk.in> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com> wrote:
> * 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.
> 
> 
> I don't like the way this feels. Think about it in this context:
> 
> I have two votes today - for FL-IX and Netflix. Does this mean I should have 3 votes, an additional one for the fact that I'm a PDB admin?
> 
> I don't think you're silencing someone by not giving them a vote; I think you're cementing legitimacy in the election by sticking to a documented process and procedure. This (hopefully) isn't a popularity contest - it's a real election for a real asset with real responsibilities. 
> 
> The bylaws are clear- membership is proscribed to an organization (the use of the word "may" there is the opposite of "may not" and is inclusive), with an individual representative of that organization.
> 
> I'm in favor of being an inclusive organization, and Florian absolutely deserves a vote - whether it's his own through an organization, or proxied through another. This is something that needs to be fixed before the next election (to be clearer).
> 
> Regards,
> -Dave
> 
>  
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Golding |	 Network Infrastructure Engineering |	 dgolding at google.com |	  +1 202-370-5916
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov

More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list