[PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB

[John van Oppen]

Being mad or frustrated with policy is ok, asking folks not to stand or withdraw is not in my mind, especially from someone who was in fact on the board for quite a long time.

That is my two cents.    I can be abrasive but I would not ask a candidate to back out of an election for reasons not in the bylaws.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pdb-gov <pdb-gov-bounces at lists.peeringdb.com> On Behalf Of Patrick Gilmore via Pdb-gov
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:32 PM
To: pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
Subject: Re: [PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB

John:

I disagree this is inappropriate. Many questions asked of the candidates have nothing to do with the bylaws, and Chris is not (cannot) force them to do anything.

Perhaps a better question is: Why are you trying to tell a member what they can and cannot ask of candidates? The candidates can say “no” and move on if they disagree, but this seems well within the bounds of “appropriate” for a member to ask of prospective board members IMHO.

--
TTFN,
patrick

> On Apr 14, 2026, at 14:41, John van Oppen via Pdb-gov <pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com> wrote:
> 
> Chris -
> 
> It is inappropriate to ask this when it is not currently in the bylaws, why are you pushing this so hard?   Is there a policy being violated here?  If the answer to the policy violation is that there is none we should just move along.
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pdb-gov <pdb-gov-bounces at lists.peeringdb.com> On Behalf Of Chris 
> Caputo via Pdb-gov
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 11:35 AM
> To: Yolandi Cloete <yolandi at peeringdb.com>; Arnold Nipper 
> <arnold at peeringdb.com>
> Cc: Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net>; pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> Subject: Re: [PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB
> 
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2026, Yolandi Cloete wrote:
>> Alternatively for this round of voting,* if it so happens *that the 
>> two of us are the top two voted candidates, we could hold a second 
>> round of voting in which members vote for only one of us. The second 
>> seat should be awarded to the third‑highest‑voted candidate.
> 
> Without restarting it completely, the election process conducted by PeeringDB can't really be altered while it is underway.
> 
> That said, if neither you nor Arnold will withdraw from this election, one or both of you could make a public commitment that if both elected, one of you will not accept the election and thus defer to the next ranked choice candidate.
> 
> Are you Yolandi willing to make that commitment?
> 
> Is Arnold?
> 
> Chris