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

[Gregoire EHOUMI]

> Le 10 févr. 2019 à 06:36, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> a écrit :
> 
> 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  ;-)

Everybody knows there is no transition-only pool and that is why SL-bis tried to define one.

The question was "who told you that transition-only is supposed to be one of  those things that was magically dealt with, “out of the /12”?

> 
> 
>> 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.

Not true. The proposal takes the power from "board discretion ", and expects the community to agree on what is in its best interest.

In all cases, if community fails to act, bylaws allows board to make policy when necessary and urgent and imposes that such policy be presented to community for endorsement. I would expect board to act through this mechanism.

If transition-only pool is needed, why can't someone propose a policy? Through the normal or fast track mode?  Have we lost trust in our PDP and relying on board ? and staff ? as below you expect staff to see risk for future allocation/assignments on behalf of the community.

> 
>> 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.
> 


Thanks,

-Gregoire