Chris was never on the board, so that’s not important here. I was, but I did not ask anyone to do anything.
As for the question, I guess we shall have to agree to disagree. -- TTFN, patrick > On Apr 16, 2026, at 19:25, John van Oppen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Patrick > Gilmore via Pdb-gov > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 >> <[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 >
