[rpd] AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT02

[Seun Ojedeji]

Jordi I don't think you've done anything wrong, you've proposed a policy,
and it's in order as far as am concerned. If a member believe some part of
the text needs further reconsideration then he/she should state that clearly

I would not expect any author to propose a draft without some form of
personal analysis/checks(detailed or not) as that is what will better
inform the problem statement. I hope the discussion will focus on the
substance of the proposal and not on whether the author have done
sufficient analysis or not.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, 12:17 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Hi Seun, all,
>
>
>
> (trying to be in the middle-point here)
>
>
>
> As a very frequent author, not just in AfriNIC, but in all the RIRs, what
> I can say is that I always try to verify that the policy proposals are
> in-line with the bylaws, agreements, PDP and RIR scope. That’s why I
> mention before, that I’ve re-read today all those documents, in case I’ve
> missed anything when I was working in the proposal text.
>
>
>
> Obviously, this is not “stated” in the PDP, but I think is somehow a must
> for any possible co-author willing to contribute in an efficient way, and
> avoids waste of time for the staff and community. Note here, that I don’t
> consider waste of time when a proposal doesn’t reach consensus, is part of
> the process, but when a poorly written proposal or clearly against the
> scope of AfriNIC is submitted.
>
>
>
> That said, clearly a single pair of eyes (or a few of them when several
> co-authors), is not as efficient as doing as well:
>
>    1. The staff assessment.
>    2. Community discussion.
>    3. Efficient evolution of the proposal, track of
>    changes/suggestions/improvements along the discussion and the staff
>    assessment.
>
>
>
> I think this is clearly the intent of the PDP, overall.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 8/4/19 17:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Sent from my mobile
>
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> Hello SM,
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, 11:13 S. Moonesamy, <sm+af at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Seun,
> At 07:57 AM 08-04-2019, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >Since you were once a pdwg co-chair how about you share your
> >experience about how the analysis work was done during your time.
> >You may also want to point to the section of the PDP that suggests
> >that it isn't staff that does draft analysis (since you authored it)
>
> I used to do an analysis of a proposal (as author) before submitting it.
>
>
>
> SO: The question was not whether you do analysis as author but whether you
> do so and publish same as co-chair. Since you seem to basically be saying
> that the author of the proposal being discussed may not have done an
> analysis? though you didn't point me to where that was required in the PDP?
> You could simply ask him for the specific analysis you are hoping for
> instead of directing that to the co-chairs
>
>
>
> The last time I checked an author including his/her analysis isn't a
> requirement but including a problem statement is. It is then up to the
> author to decide on whether including some analysis will be useful to
> better provide clarity on the problem statement.
>
>
>
> The analysis/review that is however required and mandated by the PDP is
> that of staff.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190408/fb91956c/attachment.html>