<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div></div>
<div>Agreed. Pretty straightforward. </div>
<div><br>
On Nov 18, 2015, at 15:04, Dave Temkin <<a href="mailto:dave@temk.in">dave@temk.in</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>One org, one person, one vote, not one person one vote. <br>
<br>
<div class="acompli_signature"></div>
Otherwise the voting pool can be flooded with disinterested parties. We shouldn't care WHO votes from an org, so long as that interested org only has a single vote. This is how the IXes (and ARIN) do it and it works quite well.</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:00 PM -0800, "Chris Malayter"
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mustang@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">mustang@peeringdb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="3D"ltr"">
<pre>Agree on the one person/one vote.
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Golding <dgolding@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@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@temk.in> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz@20c.com> wrote:
> * Chris Phillips <cphillips@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@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@peeringdb.com> [151115 18:04 +0000]:
> > >>> Keeping in mind article 2 of:
> > >>>
> > >>> <a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 <a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a>
> > >>> account and an individual representative or role subscription to
> > >>> the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:
> > >>>
> > >>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com">http://lists.peeringdb.com</a>/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 <a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a> 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 <a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a>
> > >>> account" in the second sentence refers to organizational, not
> > >>> individual, <a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a> 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 "<a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a> 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
> > >>>> (<a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a>):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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 <a href="http://peeringdb.com">PeeringDB.com</a>
> > >>>> account and an individual representative or role subscription
> > >>>> to the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:
> > >>>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi</a>-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@peeringdb.com>
> > >>>> PeeringDB Administrator
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Pdb-gov mailing list
> > >> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> > >> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Golding | Network Infrastructure Engineering | <a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com">dgolding@google.com</a> | +1 202-370-5916
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
_______________________________________________
Pdb-gov mailing list
<a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a>
<a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a>
</fhibler@peeringdb.com></secretary@peeringdb.com></grizz@20c.com></cphillips@aptient.com></grizz@20c.com></dave@temk.in></steven.feldman@cbsinteractive.com></dgolding@google.com></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Pdb-gov mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>