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

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 10:19:44 -0700

I have tremendous respect for both Arnold and Yolanda. Either would be excellent board members. 

However, I agree that with a 5-member board, 40% membership held by a single organization is an issue. It’s more than a perception issue. As others have pointed out, it’s a majority of quorum. In fact, it’s a supermajority of minimum quorum. 

Independent of who the candidates are, I would support a requirement that each of the 5 board members be from distinct organizations. 

Owen


On Apr 14, 2026, at 10:11, Thomas Wodarek via Pdb-gov <[email protected]> wrote:


A similar rule exists for the Kubernetes Steering Committee if we're looking for inspiration from other community organizations.  They require any given company have no more than 1/3 representation (so a maximum of 2 seats on their 7 member committee), and lay out rules for how to handle this when problems arise: https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/blob/main/elections.md#maximal-representation

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 1:00 PM Barry O'Donovan via Pdb-gov <[email protected]> wrote:

This discussion needs to be decoupled from the candidates, as I’d happily give either my vote.

This is simply a matter of good (corporate) governance: there should be a limit of one on people serving as directors from the same organisation. 

As it stands, bylaw 2.3.2 prevents members who are affiliated with each other having more than one vote. It surely then makes no sense to have two directors from the same org 🤷‍♂️

 - Barry



 


On 14/04/2026 11:45:14, "John van Oppen via Pdb-gov" <[email protected]> wrote:

Why would we force this or make a rule vs just letting the voting community decide? 2/5 is not an organizational risk, perception only risks should be handled through the voting process in my mind.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pdb-gov <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Theo Voss via Pdb-gov
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:43 AM
To: Stephen McManus <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Caputo <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Chris Caputo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB
 
+1, 5 seats should represent the entire PeeringDB community. Having them
+occupied by 2 people from
the same company creates an unhealthy imbalance from my POV.
 
Best regards,
Theo Voss, Inter.link
 
-------- Original Message --------
On Tuesday, 04/14/26 at 18:40 Stephen McManus via Pdb-gov <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 to the perception problem. I would not consider running while Alex Corso as we both work at Meta. I like working with both Yolandi and Arnold but imo we should have a rule to prevent >1 sitting board member from the same organization.
 
I think a looser rule for committee membership could be considered as well if we do consider that: > 2?
 
-Steve
 
On Apr 14, 2026, at 11:50 AM, Chris Caputo via Pdb-gov <[email protected]> wrote:
 
that two DE-CIX personnel are running for the 5-person PeeringDB
Board, based on their names also being present on
 
- Arnold Nipper, Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder
 
- Yolandi Cloete, Interconnection Community and Academy Manager
 
While board members are expected to serve independently of their
affiliations, I am concerned about the potential risks of 2/5th's of
the PeeringDB Board having the same conflict of interest.
 
Thus I ask that either Arnold or Yolandi rapidly consider withdrawing
from this election prior to the end of the April 14th 23:59:59 UTC
2026 call for candidates, just over 8 hours from now.
 
I am sure both individuals are upstanding, but the perception of
capture by DE-CIX is, in my opinion, not a good look and not a good
risk for the PeeringDB community to be faced with.
 
Since I don't see Yolandi as even subscribed to pdb-gov@, I will
forward this to her after sending to the list. (Arnold is subscribed.)
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Chris
 
 

Reply via email to