Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal

Komi Elitcha kmw.elitcha at
Wed May 22 10:29:59 UTC 2019

Hi Jordi,

On 20/05/2019 10:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry, for some reason this email was not in the right folder, so didn't saw it before. Responding now, below in-line.
Hmm. missed this important exchange... very strange, but it 
This is another motivation  to update  the PDP to better organize the 
discussions and  our work on  proposals with active moderation of the 

Many got lost and confused easily in the unmoderated  flow of mails.
> El 18/2/19 12:39, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at> 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.
We heard you and made calls to the community to comment. I hope your 
last search in the archives  shows you the current situation.
>      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      under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn proposal, who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,
Since the inception of the proposal and as you can see in the archives 
and through the revision  history, community consensual inputs have 
been  driving the proposal.

As for the collaboration with you, we have called for cochairs 
mediation  to ease things.

On the other hand, "collaboration " does not mean  one party’s view 
automatically overweigh  the other party’s views.
>   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.
You are free to do what you want and we will  see how things evolve. It 
is interesting that this working group is incapable of working out a 
consensual  PDP when we are talking about lack of participation
>      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.
Was it not you who  said " such work, cannot be perfect from 1st version"?
I am sure if we focus on the essential ones, we will agree to live with 
the rest.
>      Please, lead this process to conclusion.
>      Thank you.
>      On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors

More information about the RPD mailing list