[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Arturo Servin
arturo.servin at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 12:44:48 PST 2015
My opinion is one org, one vote.
And individuals are welcome to help and raise their voice, but only orgs
can vote.
I am not against individuals (in fact under my own view I could be excluded
to vote unless I am representative of my org), in fact I would really love
to give them a vote but I think that it would be a nightmare to measure who
is/what is an active participant. For that simple reason I think that
giving votes to individuals is unfeasible or full of flaws.
Regards
.as
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 12:34 Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
> 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/cgi
> bin/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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> 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/20151118/423735d2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list