Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal on AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07 Softlanding policy
nishal at controlfreak.co.za
Mon Mar 12 19:22:45 UTC 2018
On 12 Mar 2018, at 15:12, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> 2. Maybe not addressed to the Committee, but I would also like to
>> understand what the next steps are for the policy in question
>> following the ruling of the Committee.
>> My expectation is that the policy resumes it's status before the
>> decision in question and the co-chairs will proceed to handle things,
>> albeit in a manner that doesn't contradict the Committee's
> This seems the most logical. The decision in question has been
> appealed and because of successful appeal it is reversed. In my
> opinion that means that we now should proceed as if the chairs
> declared "no consensus". But that's my opinion :) The chairs should
> publicly state how they want to continue on the mailing list to avoid
> any uncertainty.
you mean the authors, and not chairs, right?
it seems reasonable to me that the authors either work to resolve the
issues that caused non-consensus, or abandon the policy. which are two
of the regular outcomes from a policy submission (the third being
either way, that’s an _author_ choice, and not a _co-chair_ ruling.
More information about the RPD