Search RPD Archives
[rpd] AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT02
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Apr 8 17:31:07 UTC 2019
I agree.
Fernando
On 08/04/2019 13:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:sm%2Baf 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190408/20393950/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list