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

Mon Apr 8 19:14:44 UTC 2019

Hi Seun,

I’ve no doubt on that! I just wanted to somehow also understand a bit SM concerns (not for this policy, I was trying to read in between lines), but in general, that the authors really need to do some investigation as well, not just draft the text and not read all the documents to ensure as much as they can that it is not a “plain wrong” proposal.

In that sense I take the questions from SM also part of the PDP (he was trying to make sure that I’ve read the legal documents and if my understanding was correct on that), even if he insisted too much maybe :-) , but I don’t mind answering even the same several times, is my duty as a co-author and I expect other authors to do the same in their own policy proposals, as this is what the consensus process needs.

Regards,

Jordi

El 8/4/19 18:43, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escribió:

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

**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190408/95d0e9d2/attachment-0001.html>