<div dir="ltr"><br><div>My opinion is one org, one vote.</div><div><br></div><div>And individuals are welcome to help and raise their voice, but only orgs can vote.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not against individuals (in fact under my own view I could be excluded to vote unless I am representative of my org), in fact I would really love to give them a vote but I think that it would be a nightmare to measure who is/what is an active participant. For that simple reason I think that giving votes to individuals is unfeasible or full of flaws.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>.as</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 12:34 Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">To be clear, there won't be a change during this election.<br>
<br>
Some data so far on this election, in case useful:<br>
<br>
- 63 organizations have attempted to register to vote.<br>
<br>
- 2 organizations have been disallowed from voting due to coming under<br>
the purview of the draft bylaws affiliate clause (*). 1 was<br>
disallowed because of a parent organization affiliation, and 1 was<br>
disallowed because of a common control affiliation.<br>
<br>
- 1 person has been able to cast two votes, due to being involved with<br>
two unaffiliated organizations, while not being in a position of<br>
common control.<br>
<br>
- 1 person has been denied being able to vote, because they do not<br>
represent an organization with an active PeeringDB account.<br>
<br>
- 61 organizations are presently entitled to vote.<br>
<br>
- 48 votes have been cast.<br>
<br>
- That's >78% participation from those entitled to vote. (draft bylaws<br>
quorum is 10%)<br>
<br>
> Also, to ponder - if the rule is to keep only one person per org to have<br>
> a vote, what's to keep multiples from an org from voting as individuals?<br>
<br>
Something to think about here is who does PeeringDB exist for? It could<br>
be argued it exists for the organizations that have records maintained in<br>
the database, and not for individuals. If organizations are who PeeringDB<br>
exists for, then it makes sense to have them be the source of votes.<br>
<br>
An option to consider is to continue with one-vote-per-org but have an<br>
additional class of Members, which would be made up of active admins<br>
declared by the Board, with a Membership term of 1-year (renewable). The<br>
risk with that is that you may have inactive admins fight for a vote,<br>
causing strife with the truly active admins. You'll also have to deal<br>
with the issue of whether an active admin can vote individually and for an<br>
organization or organizations. Respectfully, I am not sure the above 1<br>
denied vote makes it worthwhile to figure out, given that carefully<br>
crafted bylaws language will be needed.<br>
<br>
A problem with opening up membership to individuals in general, is that<br>
there would likely need to be some criteria to limit the voting pool.<br>
Membership fees would be one method, but then you've got the overhead of<br>
managing that. By limiting to organizations, we are able to use the<br>
notion of an active PeeringDB account as the criteria.<br>
<br>
> Also, did we anticipate the case where people get multiple votes because<br>
> they are multiple orgs?<br>
<br>
Yes, that was expected. But the affiliate clause (below) limits the<br>
frequency of that.<br>
<br>
As an aside, if you want to vote but haven't, please refer to:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/2015-November/000111.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/2015-November/000111.html</a><br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
* <a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a><br>
- 2.3.2 Members who are affiliated with each other are entitled to a<br>
total of one vote upon each issue. "Affiliate" means, with respect to<br>
a particular person, any entity that directly or indirectly controls,<br>
is controlled by, or is under common control with such person.<br>
<br>
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Daniel Golding wrote:<br>
> 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<br>
> election is worse. <br>
> 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<br>
> as individuals? Also, did we anticipate the case where people get multiple votes because they are multiple orgs?<br>
><br>
> After this election, I think we should strong consider one person/one vote. Otherwise, its just a mess.<br>
><br>
> Dan<br>
><br>
> On Monday, November 16, 2015, Steve Feldman <<a href="mailto:steven.feldman@cbsinteractive.com" target="_blank">steven.feldman@cbsinteractive.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> After reviewing the bylaws, I agree with this view.<br>
> Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are unambiguously clear that only business entities may be members, and only representatives of<br>
> members are entitled to cast votes.<br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> election. Doing so could easily give the appearance of impropriety.<br>
><br>
> The incoming board has the authority and ought to address this and a few other issues I see in the bylaws (especially<br>
> clarifying the affiliation rules) well in advance of the next election.<br>
><br>
> Steve<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Dave Temkin <<a href="mailto:dave@temk.in" target="_blank">dave@temk.in</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <<a href="mailto:grizz@20c.com" target="_blank">grizz@20c.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> * Chris Phillips <<a href="mailto:cphillips@aptient.com" target="_blank">cphillips@aptient.com</a>> [151115 17:20 -0800]:<br>
> > Begs the question, what defines a highly-active member? And of which<br>
> > community, peering in general or within PeeringDB itself?<br>
> Right, which is why we axed giving admins special membership to begin<br>
> with.<br>
><br>
> In this case, I believe he was referring to the PeeringDB community,<br>
> since Florian does support tickets and helps out a lot.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I don't like the way this feels. Think about it in this context:<br>
><br>
> I have two votes today - for FL-IX and Netflix. Does this mean I should have 3 votes, an additional one for the fact<br>
> that I'm a PDB admin?<br>
><br>
> I don't think you're silencing someone by not giving them a vote; I think you're cementing legitimacy in the election<br>
> by sticking to a documented process and procedure. This (hopefully) isn't a popularity contest - it's a real election<br>
> for a real asset with real responsibilities. <br>
><br>
> The bylaws are clear- membership is proscribed to an organization (the use of the word "may" there is the opposite of<br>
> "may not" and is inclusive), with an individual representative of that organization.<br>
><br>
> I'm in favor of being an inclusive organization, and Florian absolutely deserves a vote - whether it's his own<br>
> through an organization, or proxied through another. This is something that needs to be fixed before the next<br>
> election (to be clearer).<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> -Dave<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > On 11/15/2015 3:28 PM, Chris Malayter wrote:<br>
> > > I agree with Matt. There’s no reason to silence a highly active<br>
> > > member of the community.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > -Chris<br>
> > ><br>
> > >> On Nov 15, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Matt Griswold <<a href="mailto:grizz@20c.com" target="_blank">grizz@20c.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I read it as (and did when we were making it) a corporation may be<br>
> > >> a member in addition to an individual. Not a huge deal and I<br>
> > >> agree that we shouldn't change any language now, but thought it<br>
> > >> should be brought up for future board consideration.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> In cases like this, where Florian isn't currently at an<br>
> > >> organization yet retains his account because he's an admin and<br>
> > >> does tickets, I think he should still have a voice in any<br>
> > >> election.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> * Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> [151115 18:04 +0000]:<br>
> > >>> Keeping in mind article 2 of:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> <a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> The intention as written is that there is one class of members and<br>
> > >>> that class consists of organizations, each with a single vote.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> - 2.2 Qualifications for Membership.<br>
> > >>> - A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or<br>
> > >>> other legal business entity may be a Member of the Corporation.<br>
> > >>> Membership is determined by having both an active PeeringDB.com<br>
> > >>> account and an individual representative or role subscription to<br>
> > >>> the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi</a>bin/mailman/listinfo/pdbgov<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> - Members may have such other qualifications as the Board may<br>
> > >>> prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> So the first part of 2.2 says what "may" be a member, and then<br>
> > >>> says that from that pool of possible members, that both an<br>
> > >>> active PeeringDB.com account is needed, along with there being a<br>
> > >>> representative (individual or role) subscription to this pdb-gov<br>
> > >>> list.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Implicit by the first sentence is that "active PeeringDB.com<br>
> > >>> account" in the second sentence refers to organizational, not<br>
> > >>> individual, PeeringDB.com accounts.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I don't believe it would be wise to revise the draft documents<br>
> > >>> during the present election, but once the election is over, the<br>
> > >>> initial board (or subsequent board or member meeting) may want<br>
> > >>> to clarify that second sentence by inserting the word<br>
> > >>> "organizational" between "active" and "PeeringDB.com account",<br>
> > >>> but first I'd be curious to know if that was the source of<br>
> > >>> confusion.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Did you or Matt think that a person with an individual PeeringDB<br>
> > >>> account, subscribed to this pdb-gov list, would be sufficient to<br>
> > >>> qualify for membership, based on that second sentence of 2.2?<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> In addition to, or instead of, the clarification idea above, a<br>
> > >>> future board or member meeting could certainly revise the<br>
> > >>> definition of membership to be more inclusive, such as by<br>
> > >>> creating a category of membership eligibility for active<br>
> > >>> PeeringDB admins.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Chris<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Florian Hibler wrote:<br>
> > >>>> Good morning pdb-gov,<br>
> > >>>> after my attempt to register for voting on the PDB board<br>
> > >>>> yesterday, I figured out, that I am (according to the bylaws,<br>
> > >>>> as Chris told me), not eligible to vote, as I am not<br>
> > >>>> representing an org with a PeeringDB entry at the moment.<br>
> > >>>> Nethertheless I am actively involved into PDB and according to<br>
> > >>>> Matt Griswold I should be entitled to vote.<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>> The paragraph which excludes me from voting is according to Chris<br>
> > >>>> the following in the bylaws<br>
> > >>>> (<a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a>):<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>> 2.2 Qualifications for Membership:<br>
> > >>>> "A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other<br>
> > >>>> legal business entity may be a Member of the Corporation.<br>
> > >>>> Membership is determined by having both an active PeeringDB.com<br>
> > >>>> account and an individual representative or role subscription<br>
> > >>>> to the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:<br>
> > >>>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-</a>bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov<br>
> > >>>> Members may have such other qualifications as the Board may<br>
> > >>>> prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws."<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>> Matt sees it a bit different, so we decided to bring the topic up<br>
> > >>>> here and see what other people think about it. Your input is<br>
> > >>>> highly appreciated and looking very much forward to hear from<br>
> > >>>> you on this topic!<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>> Bests,<br>
> > >>>> Florian<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>> --<br>
> > >>>> Florian Hibler <<a href="mailto:fhibler@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">fhibler@peeringdb.com</a>><br>
> > >>>> PeeringDB Administrator<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> _______________________________________________<br>
> > >> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > >> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > >> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Dan Golding |<br>
> Network Infrastructure Engineering |<br>
> <a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com" target="_blank">dgolding@google.com</a> |<br>
> +1 202-370-5916<br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
</blockquote></div>