<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">this is for the peeringDB, yes?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">if so, it seems the prudent/reasonable tactic would be to have the first filter be (one ASN, one vote) and the second filter is (one vote per person) ...</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">gets rid of the messy (legal v. natural entity) problem.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">/Wm</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com" target="_blank">dgolding@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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. <div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>After this election, I think we should strong consider one person/one vote. Otherwise, its just a mess.</div><div><br></div><div>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><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">After reviewing the bylaws, I agree with this view.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div> Steve</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Dave Temkin <span dir="ltr"><<a>dave@temk.in</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <span dir="ltr"><<a>grizz@20c.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* Chris Phillips <<a>cphillips@aptient.com</a>> [151115 17:20 -0800]:<br>
<span>> Begs the question, what defines a highly-active member? And of which<br>
> community, peering in general or within PeeringDB itself?<br>
</span>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></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><div>I don't like the way this feels. Think about it in this context:</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-Dave</div><div><div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div><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>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>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>fhibler@peeringdb.com</a>><br>
> >>>> PeeringDB Administrator<br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> >> <a>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>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>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>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>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
<a>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></blockquote></div><br></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><tbody><tr style="color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small"><td nowrap style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(213,15,37);border-top-width:2px">Dan Golding |</td><td nowrap style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(51,105,232);border-top-width:2px"> Network Infrastructure Engineering |</td><td nowrap style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(0,153,57);border-top-width:2px"> <a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com" target="_blank">dgolding@google.com</a> |</td><td nowrap style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(238,178,17);border-top-width:2px"> <span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><a href="tel:%2B1%20202-370-5916" value="+12023705916" target="_blank">+1 202-370-5916</a></span></span></span></span></td></tr></tbody></table><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border:0px none;padding-left:1ex;color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;line-height:19.7999992370605px"><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);margin-left:24px;margin-right:24px"> </div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">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></blockquote></div><br></div>