[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

Mehmet Akcin mehmet at akcin.net
Wed Nov 18 12:02:12 PST 2015 

+1

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Chris Malayter <mustang at peeringdb.com>
wrote:

> Agree on the one person/one vote.
>
> > On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Golding <dgolding at google.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <javascript:;>> 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:;>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > * Chris Phillips <cphillips at aptient.com <javascript:;>> [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:;>> 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:;>> [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:;>>
> > > >>>> PeeringDB Administrator
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > >> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > > >> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dan Golding |  Network Infrastructure Engineering |
> dgolding at google.com <javascript:;> |       +1 202-370-5916
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <javascript:;>
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151118/580fc9ec/attachment.html>

More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list