[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Chris Caputo
secretary at peeringdb.com
Wed Nov 18 12:34:05 PST 2015
To be clear, there won't be a change during this election.
Some data so far on this election, in case useful:
- 63 organizations have attempted to register to vote.
- 2 organizations have been disallowed from voting due to coming under
the purview of the draft bylaws affiliate clause (*). 1 was
disallowed because of a parent organization affiliation, and 1 was
disallowed because of a common control affiliation.
- 1 person has been able to cast two votes, due to being involved with
two unaffiliated organizations, while not being in a position of
common control.
- 1 person has been denied being able to vote, because they do not
represent an organization with an active PeeringDB account.
- 61 organizations are presently entitled to vote.
- 48 votes have been cast.
- That's >78% participation from those entitled to vote. (draft bylaws
quorum is 10%)
> 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?
Something to think about here is who does PeeringDB exist for? It could
be argued it exists for the organizations that have records maintained in
the database, and not for individuals. If organizations are who PeeringDB
exists for, then it makes sense to have them be the source of votes.
An option to consider is to continue with one-vote-per-org but have an
additional class of Members, which would be made up of active admins
declared by the Board, with a Membership term of 1-year (renewable). The
risk with that is that you may have inactive admins fight for a vote,
causing strife with the truly active admins. You'll also have to deal
with the issue of whether an active admin can vote individually and for an
organization or organizations. Respectfully, I am not sure the above 1
denied vote makes it worthwhile to figure out, given that carefully
crafted bylaws language will be needed.
A problem with opening up membership to individuals in general, is that
there would likely need to be some criteria to limit the voting pool.
Membership fees would be one method, but then you've got the overhead of
managing that. By limiting to organizations, we are able to use the
notion of an active PeeringDB account as the criteria.
> Also, did we anticipate the case where people get multiple votes because
> they are multiple orgs?
Yes, that was expected. But the affiliate clause (below) limits the
frequency of that.
As an aside, if you want to vote but haven't, please refer to:
http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/2015-November/000111.html
Chris
* https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf
- 2.3.2 Members who are affiliated with each other are entitled to a
total of one vote upon each issue. "Affiliate" means, with respect to
a particular person, any entity that directly or indirectly controls,
is controlled by, or is under common control with such person.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Daniel Golding 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> 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> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com> wrote:
> * Chris Phillips <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> 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list