[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

bill manning azuremesa at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 14:36:15 PST 2015 

thought experiment:
an entity has one or more ASNs assigned, either through an RIR or from
private ASN space.
Each ASN represents a unique Peering Policy (thats what ASNs do).

Posit one vote per policy or vote per ASN.

In the event that an entity has multiple ASNs/policies, all represented by
the same natural person, it would seem prudent to restrict the natural
person to a single vote, regardless of the number of ASNs they represent.

Are you suggesting that instead of the natural/legal entity distinction,
that a better way would be to have a single vote per registered entity
regardless of the number of ASNs/policies registered in peeringDB?

Think that might work.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
wrote:

> As a point of information: So far we have one voter which does not have an
> ASN.  (an exchange point)
>
> Having organizations be the member base and then saying one vote per
> person, would seem orthogonal.
>
> For example, if orgs are the member base, and you limit to one vote per
> person:
>
>  - if another personal is in the org, someone else would vote
>
>  - if no one else in the org is available to vote, the org is
>    disenfranchised.  (single person organization, such as a
>    sole-proprietorship, is a legitimate organization)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, bill manning wrote:
> > 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/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/a58f3bc7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list