Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up
geier at geier.ne.tz
Wed Jun 6 08:11:21 UTC 2018
I would also like to oppose any move to allow anonymous policy
proposals. We need to have a possibility to address the author. And we
need to know who the author is.
On 6/5/2018 7:04 PM, Dabu Sifiso wrote:
> Hi Arnaud,
> I would like to formally and strongly oppose the policy in its current form AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-03 found at:
> And any future versions that retain the anonymous option as a valid form of submission for a policy.
> I would like to suggest adding that any potential conflict of interest MUST be disclosed by the authors upon submitting a policy.
> Not that the community can do much about a conflict of interest declared or not from an author, but it would be good practice to put it as a must and offer a much needed transparency.
> Transparency is what is often lacking.
> 12.04.2018, 15:21, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com>:
>> Hi Dear Board member Mooneamy,
>> Thanks for your valuable comments. See below between lines
>> 2018-04-10 20:06 GMT+00:00 S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>:
>>> I read AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02. In Section 3.5:
>>> "One or all initiators of a policy proposal have the option to remain anonymous."
>>> Could the anonymity cause any conflict of interest issues?
>> Of which sort?
> Does this still need to be answered?
>> Who knows those people who are behind policy proposals and not listed as co-authors ?
> Why make it easier. If people want to use sock puppets and remain anonymous, at least someone will be attached to the policy ghost writer or not.
> It is the case today, it may remain like that tomorrow as well.
> I see no advantage in creating the anonymous part, other than to try to play games with the system.
> Also isn't it for the author(s) to address any issues or concerns raised in regards to a policy?
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD