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 > <[email protected]> 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
