Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat May 25 19:24:50 UTC 2019
El 25/5/19 14:57, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:
Le mer. 22 mai 2019 à 13:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> a écrit :
Hi Komi, all,
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.
Can we be more serious in these discussions about the PDP with less contradictions and inconsistencies?
What argument are you really making with the statement above?
I don’t see the contradiction here, unless I said something broken, not being native English. What I’m saying is that the PDP and the corresponding list MUST NOT be moderated at all. I will love everyone participating, and that must be the goal. A more complex PDP process doesn’t facilitate an increase of participation. Whatever we do MUST NOT add difficulties or complexities to those that already participate, or we may lose them.
PDP is not an IGF, but an open, transparent decision making forum with a clear process.
The AFRINIC PDP uses a Working Group as it is expected to study, discuss, design and implement through policies, solutions for a proper management of the INRs in the service region.
And such working group requires appropriate moderation.
Moderation of a working group mailing list must be understood as defined in BCP25, section 6.1
Moderate the WG email list
The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on the list are relevant and that they converge to consensus agreements. The Chair should make sure that discussions on the list are summarized and that the outcome is well documented (to avoid repetition). ...........
I’m sorry but I disagree with the term “moderation” used in BCP25 for the PDP.
When you say “moderation” *unless* you explicitly CITE BCP25, section 6.1, 99% of the community will understand a different thing. I believe also that you aren’t reading correctly BCP25 for two reasons:
The IETF process is only “on-list”.
The IETF usage of moderation is subjected to other timing, possible virtual meetings, etc.
I agree that the chairs should make sure that the discussions are on topic and polite, and I think that’s not what the people usually understands as moderation. Moderate a list is to allow each email to be sent or not to the list, in the context that it was said by Komi “Many got lost and confused easily in the unmoderated flow of mails”.
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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD