[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

Daniel Golding dgolding at google.com
Wed Nov 18 11:53:08 PST 2015 

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 at 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 at temk.in
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dave at temk.in');>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grizz at 20c.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> * Chris Phillips <cphillips at aptient.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cphillips at 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 at 20c.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fhibler at peeringdb.com');>>
>>> > >>>> PeeringDB Administrator
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> Pdb-gov mailing list
>>> > >> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com');>
>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dan Golding | Network Infrastructure Engineering | dgolding at google.com |  +1
202-370-5916
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151118/061f8c31/attachment.html>

More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list