[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
mustang at peeringdb.com
Sun Nov 15 15:28:00 PST 2015
I agree with Matt. There’s no reason to silence a highly active member of the community.
> 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:
>> 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
>>> 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."
>>> 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!
>>> Florian Hibler <fhibler at peeringdb.com>
>>> PeeringDB Administrator
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
More information about the Pdb-gov