[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
grizz at 20c.com
Sun Nov 15 15:21:22 PST 2015
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:
> 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:
> - 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
> 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.
> 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
More information about the Pdb-gov