Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Statement from the authors of Soft Landing Overhall (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)

Noah noah at
Mon Dec 12 21:12:39 UTC 2016

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at> wrote:

> *Is there any policy that has ever been proposed through consultation of
> the wider community.  Last I checked, all the policies were and are
> proposed by individuals without a wider consultation from the wider
> community and the community only comes in after the authors have submitted
> their proposal. It has always been the norm. *
> *This approach you propose intends to cause unnecessary stalemate similar
> to the situations where folk decide to come up with counter policies
> against other policy proposals as a way of disagreement  thereby confusing
> and wasting the communities time which is counter-productive hence the
> current deadlock. *
> Noah,
> Your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph.

No it doesn't.

No Author/Authors have ever consulted the wider community before proposing
a policy. I don't know of any such inquiry to the wider community by
prospective authors of a new policy prior to a policy proposal. That is
what I meant and its the 1st time someone is suggesting the same.

> no one has ever attempted the approach I am now suggesting – and perhaps
> if we had it would have avoided the many failed policies that have hit the
> floor or the massive time to get a policy passed.

Yes no one, because the norm has always been simple. Some Authors propose a
policy and the community get involved through pdp until its either ratified
or withdrawn. All the current active policies passed through the same
process because it works just fine.

> Your second statement is that the approach I suggest causes stalemate and
> leads to certain situations.  That is unfounded, because by your own
> admission, it has never been attempted before and therefore you cannot make
> a statement about what it will lead to.

Its not unfounded. My point was based on the argument that, I have seen
cases of folk coming up with counter-policies as opposition to other policy

This culture of proposing counter-policies is what has caused a stalemate
because you find two policies trying to achieve the same goal and the
community is forced to divide itself hence failure to progress.

When soft-landing-BIS was posted. Before we could deliberate, oppose,
suggest modification to it, within a few days we had another policy
proposal called soft-landing overhaul posted for discussion.

Now we as a community found ourselves in the middle of deliberating two
policies that are trying to achieve the same goal instead of concentrating
on one policy at a time. We could have added our voices of opposition,
proposition and suggestions to improve one policy and if no consensus send
it back to mailing list since pdp process allows all this.

> Just because something has always been done one way – does not mean we
> should not try an alternative if the current method is failing us, and I
> would argue based on what we have seen over the last few years, the current
> way of doing things is not working nearly as well as it should be, so lets
> try something new?

The current way has no problem as long as counter policy proposals don't
become the norm since discussing a simple policy is far simpler and quicker
to withdraw or ratify than two policies trying to achieve same goal.

> Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list