[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

bill manning azuremesa at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 13:58:47 PST 2015 

this is for the peeringDB, yes?
if so, it seems the prudent/reasonable tactic would be to have the first
filter be (one ASN, one vote) and the second filter is (one vote per
person) ...
gets rid of the messy (legal v. natural entity) problem.

/Wm

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding <dgolding at google.com>
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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151118/69a33552/attachment.html>

More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list