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

[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal

Dewole Ajao dewole at
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 


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. 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> 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      under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn 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