[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Chris Phillips]

Begs the question, what defines a highly-active member?  And of which 
community, peering in general or within PeeringDB itself?

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 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:
>>>
>>>   https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>      http://lists.peeringdb.com/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
>>>   PeeringDB.com 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 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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> (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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pdb-gov mailing list
>> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>