Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
Dewole Ajao
dewole at forum.org.ng
Wed May 22 11:44:12 UTC 2019
"active moderation of the cochairs" in what sense, if I may ask, Komi?
How have many gotten lost?
What would you rather the co-chairs do in this instance (or any previous
instances you have in mind) to prevent many from getting "lost and
confused"?
Dewole.
On 5/22/2019 11:29 AM, Komi Elitcha wrote:
> 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. ..you missed this important exchange... very strange, but it
> happens....
> This is another motivation to update the PDP to better organize the
> discussions and our work on proposals with active moderation of the
> cochairs...
>
> 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 under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn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 the rest.
>> Please, lead this process to conclusion.
>> Thank you.
>> On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors
More information about the RPD
mailing list