Chris, thanks for bringing this up; it's a good catch, and you were right to surface it.
I agree with what many others have said, either Yolandi or Arnold could certainly do the job, and I trust them to each act responsibly in such a role. Given that pdb: (a) is a non-profit serving a professional community; (b) is the defacto authoritative source for critical interconnection data; (c) operates in a context where differing positions may result in financial gain or loss for certain parties; and (d) allows two directors to constitute a majority of a three-director quorum Therefore, from a governance perspective, I feel it's prudent to add an anti-capture clause to our governing documents. It's too late to make such a change before this election. Despite my views on Yolandi's and Arnold's individual qualifications, I hope that through either the candidates’ decisions or the election outcome, we avoid a situation in which multiple directors share the same professional affiliation. -Chris On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:58 AM Chris Caputo via Pdb-gov < [email protected]> wrote: > Obviously, I disagree. When I posted my original email there were only 3 > candidates, and the probability of two from DE-CIX being elected was high > enough to take the personal risk of voicing my concern. > > There is no present policy being violated here, that is why I am calling > on people's better angels. Ultimately this is an organization of people > who care about its future. > > In your previous email you wrote: > > Until there is formal policy we really should not be advocating like > > this in my mind, especially from members of the board. > > I have seen no members of the PeeringDB board or officers participate in > this pdb-gov discussion. I am a lay person who was formerly the > secretary/treasurer from 2015-2024. > > Chris > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2026, John van Oppen 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chris > Caputo via Pdb-gov > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 11:35 AM > > To: Yolandi Cloete <[email protected]>; Arnold Nipper < > [email protected]> > > Cc: Chris Caputo <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > 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
