Search RPD Archives
[rpd] SL update policy, and its implication for a transition pool.
nishal at controlfreak.co.za
Sun Feb 10 11:36:20 UTC 2019
On 3 Feb 2019, at 23:06, Gregoire EHOUMI wrote:
> Hi Nishal,
>> i have a question for the authors of tohe “SL update policy”.
>> i’ve been told before that there isn’t a “transition only”
>> pool set aside specifically, because this is supposed to be one of
>> those things that was magically dealt with, “out of the /12”.
> Told by who?
well, anyone can search the policy archives, and you’ll see no mention
of a transition pool ;-)
> And how would that magic happen?
that’s actually quite easy to answer. you answer it below yourself,
> Beyond the phases, the soft landing policy does not have a provision
> for a transition pool.The /12 is reserved for unforeseen future. And
> section 184.108.40.206 gives authority to board at its discretion to decide
.. ^^ see. thanks for providing the normative reference.
so the board, could have, at their discretion, instituted this. but
your proposal takes this power away from them, meaning that, unless
someone _else_ proposes a policy (and there isn’t one yet) there’s
no transition pool.
> Staff understanding of the proposal is correct, and as the proposal
> does not revoke any specific transition-only pool, I don't see why
> staff will ring the bell.
hrm. then, let’s agree to disagree on what we might, individually,
expect staff to see as a risk to future allocations/assignments ..
my point, perhaps too obliquely phrased, is this:
>> (i am sure there might be more concerns too, if folks sat down and
>> though about them…)
>> to be clear, i’m not asking for this to be included in your policy.
>> just that a more thorough analysis be done.
More information about the RPD