Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed May 22 13:50:08 UTC 2019
Hi Komi, all,
El 22/5/19 10:30, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:
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
Well I agree, it happens, I recall when before the Dakar meeting some proposal authors didn't responded to previous emails (and they never did). See below regarding this, because it is expected that authors respond, it MUST NOT BE expected that community do.
This is another motivation to update the PDP to better organize the
discussions and our work on proposals with active moderation of the
I don't agree, but may be if there is a way we need to understand what it means "active moderation". I think the bigger problem with have in the Internet communities (even in IETF for example), is that people don't have time, or just don't pay attention, or don't want to pay attention. But if you are in that side of the playground, then you need to realize that you can't complain when rules (in our case policies), get adopted.
Many got lost and confused easily in the unmoderated flow of mails.
Big disagreement here. A PDP, by definition is an open and NOT MODERATED PROCESS AT ALL. It must be dynamic, and if some people don't participate, is not good, but that should not preclude the moderation of those that actually participate.
> 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.
Please, realize that if I send an email to a given policy authors in November, it should not be needed that I resend the email 6 months after to get responses. If you volunteer to author a proposal, you commit to advance it according to the community discussion and respond timely to emails. This is not necessarily true for community participants, they can decide NOT to respond to authors emails.
> 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.
Fully agree, but finding consensus means conceding to the community when it is clear that authors are wrong in something. Otherwise, consensus can't be declared.
> 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
Just want to make sure that you think if your complex process is simplifying the increase of community participation. I think is not the case, others may disagree, but at least, we have now discussed concrete pieces that may be reworded to get them right.
> 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
Of course, but both things are compatible. I usually don't expect that a 1st version of a policy proposal is right, but if you don't keep improving it along new version, it will not happen.
> Please, lead this process to conclusion.
> Thank you.
> On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.
More information about the RPD