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

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

Sander Steffann sander at
Mon Mar 12 21:19:03 UTC 2018


>> 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 consensus)
> either way, that’s an _author_ choice, and not a _co-chair_ ruling.

I meant a statement from the chairs that the decision has now been formally changed to "no consensus" (to make it easier for people reading this back later in the list archives etc) and formally asking the authors what they want the next step to be. I'm just looking for things to be publicly stated on the mailing list by the appropriate parties so that everything is clearly documented and in the open. I think we owe it to future generations to leave a understandable list archive :)  You are right that part of that belongs with the authors.


More information about the RPD mailing list