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

[rpd] Appeal on AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07 Softlanding policy

Nishal Goburdhan nishal at
Mon Mar 12 19:22:45 UTC 2018

On 12 Mar 2018, at 15:12, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi,
>> 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 
>> ruling......??
> 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 mailing list