Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
kmw.elitcha at gmail.com
Wed May 22 10:29:59 UTC 2019
On 20/05/2019 10:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Sorry, for some reason this email was not in the right folder, so didn't saw it before. Responding now, below in-line.
Hmm. ..you 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 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.
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 under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn proposal, who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
> Please, lead this process to conclusion.
> Thank you.
> On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors
More information about the RPD