[rpd] SL update policy, and its implication for a transition pool.

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 3 Feb 2019, at 23:06, Gregoire EHOUMI wrote:

> Hi Nishal,

hi,


>> 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, 
actually..


> 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 5.7.4.2 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.

that’s all.


> 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.


best,
—n.