[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal

Mon May 20 10:09:11 UTC 2019

Hi,

Sorry, for some reason this email was not in the right folder, so didn't saw it before. Responding now, below in-line. 

El 18/2/19 12:39, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:

    Dear co-chairs,

      As you know, PDP update discussions  at Afrinic-29  were rich and  led 
    to the abandonment of the competing  proposal.

This is incorrect. I voluntarily decided to withdraw my proposal, under the expectation that you will consider the community inputs (including those from me), to improve your proposal.

    PDP-BIS authors will not support  a complete rewrite  of the proposal 
    under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn proposal, who  
    changed  his  mind after supporting the proposal at Afrinic 28

You're saying it all. You don't want to cooperate with the community, which is the expected behavior according to the PDP, to improve the proposal. I was generous withdrawing my proposal just to avoid and endless discussion, but if you have this position, I should resubmit my proposal and the community can decide which one is better.

    The current version of PDP-BIS proposal is the fruit of community inputs 
    and raise of multiple concerns. We welcome new areas of *essential* 
    improvement if we have not dealt with yet.

That's wrong. The PDP is  about improvements not just "essential" ones.

    Please, lead this process to conclusion.

    Thank you.

    On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors

    On 10/02/2019 20:47, Dewole Ajao wrote:
    > Good day Authors,
    >
    > I trust you are doing well. As agreed during the last public policy 
    > meeting, I hope you have given some thought to how contributions on 
    > the PDP update proposal can be accepted.
    >
    > Jordi, you had mentioned some areas that you believe need improvement 
    > in the current PDP BIS proposal draft - can we start by laying out 
    > these areas and seeing which ones can be absorbed into the PDP BIS draft?
    >
    > Authors, would it be possible to group the proposed changes to the PDP 
    > in such a way that patches are applied to the areas of concern that 
    > reach rough consensus of the PDWG rather than waiting to have 
    > agreement on *all* the parts of the proposal? These groups of changes 
    > could also be proposed simultaneously as separate proposals at the 
    > same time if all parts must be addressed at once.
    >
    > Do note that you are not compelled to do any of the above but this is 
    > the co-chairs' attempt to see the process move forward in a manner 
    > that would save us months and see us finding rough consensus on all or 
    > part of the existing proposal; As per the PDP, the alternatives of 
    > maintaining the status quo and/or accepting new proposals on the same 
    > subject definitely remain.
    >
    > Please note that the rpd list is in copy so that other members may 
    > also volunteer input as this process goes on. Looking forward to 
    > reading from you soon.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > PDWG Co-Chairs.
    >
    -- 
    KE
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/

    _______________________________________________
    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.