[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
ck at megaport.com
Fri Nov 20 11:48:36 PST 2015
going to have to agree here.
this is a silly rule, with no way to validate the independence of the
On 19 November 2015 at 13:27, Pierfrancesco Caci <pf at caci.it> wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> writes:
> Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> writes:
> Chris> - 2 organizations have been disallowed from voting due to
> Chris> coming under the purview of the draft bylaws affiliate
> Chris> clause (*). 1 was disallowed because of a parent
> Chris> organization affiliation, and 1 was disallowed because
> Chris> of a common control affiliation.
> >> After this election is over, I suggest that we talk about when a
> >> controlled organization is independent enough to get their own vote
> >> besides that of the parent. One of the 2 orgs that have been
> >> could well have voted independently of mine, in my opinion.
> Chris> Allowing organizations under common control to have multiple
> Chris> depending on the level of independence reported by the
> Chris> themselves, would seem to be a challenging equation to balance.
> Chris> If A is a parent of B and C, and B and C are able to vote,
> Chris> then A wields
> Chris> twice the influence of other voters.
> Chris> I don't see how that can be negated.
> I'm not sure which cases we're trying to prevent here. B and C run
> different networks with different peering policies and requirements.
> I understand that you have no possibility to check the level of
> independence. Anyway, let's have this vote come to conclusion, and maybe
> in the meantime I or someone else comes up with a better idea.
> Pierfrancesco Caci
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pdb-gov