Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
Dewole Ajao
dewole at forum.org.ng
Mon May 27 10:14:49 UTC 2019
It's good to hear that you are excited, Marcus. Hopefully you will
channel that energy into encouraging rather than distracting from the
current productive conversation.
When we proposed that authors and interested community members work
collaboratively at the last PPM, it was with the hope that some middle
ground would be found. Refer to emails of February 18 and February 22
from the PDP-BIS authors to see the stand taken by the authors. We can
try to encourage collaboration and cooperation but we cannot force
anyone to shift from their stand.
In addition, if I had been the one to comment on the factual
inaccuracies in Komi's account of the PPM while it was Jordi being
challenged, I would have appeared biased; The meeting recordings are
there to show the facts. Interestingly, the recent restart of productive
discussion was as a result of Jordi finding and responding to Komi's
email after he assumed there was no further response from the PDP-BIS
authors.
Just so you are aware, Marcus, I will not engage you further on any
replies that do nothing to further the progress of this policy
discussion. Staying on topic within policy discussions will be a good
practice for us all to imbibe.
Thank you.
Dewole.
On 5/27/2019 10:20 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:
> Hello Dewole,
>
> It is exciting to see cochair engaged, expressing views and opinions.
> You suddenly became vocal, but went quiet when coauthors responded to
> you in February and called for your leadership on the collaborative
> work with Jordi on update to PDP.
>
> Good or bad sign?
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:04:30 PM
> *To:* Komi Elitcha
> *Cc:* Honest Ornella GANKPA; ALAIN AINA; rpd
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
> Hi Komi,
>
> See mine in between.
>
> On 5/25/2019 9:33 AM, Komi Elitcha wrote:
> > Hi Dewole,
> >
> > - This conversation is the exact situation where 2 working group
> members with good intention are expressing different approaches to
> the same problem. Thus, the need for a neutral party (moderator) to
> help them dissipate their disagreement and build a common ground
> acceptable to both; what we call here rough consensus.
> Touching on the problem as seen by both working group members is a good
> (re)start :
>
> The Simple update to PDP proposal submitted by Jordi at
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d2#proposal can be
> summarized as wanting to explicitly state that mailing list and PPM
> contributions be considered in consensus checks, it attempts to define
> "consensus" and "last call". It also introduces/modifies some timing
> related to activities within the PDP.
>
> The PDP BIS proposal submitted by Komi et al at
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2017-gen-002 can be summarized as wanting
> to introduce a proposal adoption phase that makes problem statements
> clearer, prevents duplicate proposals tackling the same problem,
> explicitly allows classification of certain proposals as "out of scope",
> and provides a "clear method for moving proposals forward". It seeks to
> define a decision-making process for consensus to close the door to
> "interpretations and inactions". It also seeks to fix the absence of
> provision for board adopting policies under a varied process. This is in
> addition to a document that defines "clear roles and responsibilities
> for the chairs and clear procedures for the working group's
> administration".
>
> Based on the big difference in approaches, can we really say both
> approaches are looking at the same problem(s)? Perhaps this cooperation
> can start by a joint look at the perceived problem(s) and then moving
> from that to a solution?
>
> >
> > - Moderate does not mean censor, ban or punish. Moderate as
> prescribed by PDP-BIS is a way of helping the working group
> methodically make progress and so, encourage more participation and
> dihscourage disruptive behaviours, as they will no longer produce the
> expected effects.
> Okay.... We will come back to this in due course.
> >
> > - In PDP, there are no products, no sellers or buyers. Once a
> problem is identified and accepted as work item by the Working group,
> the solution must be community-driven. That is why, PDP-BIS is moving
> from this authors against others mode to a more community approach.
> The "authors" is replaced by "initiators". All rights on proposals
> are granted to the Working group giving more powers to the community
> and the cochairs, etc.
>
> :-) On the contrary, Komi, the products of the PDWG are (improved)
> Internet number resource management policies. Typically, someone has to
> identify a problem (or a possible improvement) and share it with the
> community with the hopes that the active members of the community agree
> that it is a problem to be solved (or a desirable improvement). That
> process of sharing with the expectation of adoption could be smoother if
> the author/initiator were to treat the people they need to convince like
> they were rich clients whom they needed to open their purses. No money
> changes hands but you get the idea.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dewole.
>
> >
> > HTH
> > Komi
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >> Le 24 mai 2019 à 05:44, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hi Komi,
> >>
> >> Beyond requesting clarification where needed, I have generally
> stayed out of proposal discussions to avoid situations where my
> comments are misconstrued as being for or against a proposal. That
> being said, I will make some comments because it may be helpful in
> this case for the community to see things from the viewpoint of a
> co-chair. I am also happy to recuse myself from any determination
> regarding any/all PDP improvement proposals if that is perceived to be
> the best way forward.
> >>
> >> 1. It is quite interesting that you state categorically that all we
> do as co-chairs is the bare minimum listed in the current PDP. Many of
> the things you mention as roles and responsibilities in the PDP-BIS
> proposal are already being done (even though we do them with
> expectations of maturity/cooperation within the group and without
> trying to micro-manage the process). If the PDP is updated to have
> specific phases, co-chairs must work with that.
> >>
> >> 2. As you may have observed, my personal opinion is that censoring
> the few participants in a discussion does not serve to encourage
> participation. Some members are prone to taunting others while being
> barely civil and unfortunately their targets take the bait and allow
> emotions drive them to respond with insults/slander/attacks. We also
> have cases where members branch out from the policy discussion to
> sentimental issues that should have no bearing on policy. As
> co-chairs, we observe these distractions from time to time but we
> choose not to amplify them. I would rather allow common sense prevail
> since a mature mind should be able to sidestep any distraction and
> stay on the topic of policy development. I don't think there is a
> perfect solution as this is totally dependent on the maturity of
> discussants but perhaps we at AFRINIC could borrow a leaf from
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/aup/ where a
> standing committee exists to assist with reviewing the course of
> action in the event of abuse.
> >>
> >> 3. Co-chairs currently monitor remote chat during the PPM in
> addition to the assigned staff member monitoring remote participation.
> When the traffic is light, it is easy for co-chairs to cover both
> in-room and remote participation with no problem but there be
> situations where there is a lot of chatter in the chat as well as in
> the room. I believe the PDP should allow room for the assigned staff
> to bring any missed points from remote participation to the attention
> of the co-chairs.
> >>
> >> 4. The list of responsibilities you posted below has done nothing
> to help me understand what you mean by "uncontrolled email flow" or
> "unmoderated flow of mails". What specific actions would you suggest
> that we take, please?
> >>
> >> 5. Despite your attempts to hard-code specific responsibilities in
> the PDP-BIS, some of them are still subject to interpretation and it
> is quite possible that having them there does not achieve the desired
> results. What we need to do is tell ourselves the truth: people just
> need to become more mature. We need to try to see things from others'
> point of view and understand that we are not always the ones that know
> best what is best for everyone. We should also try to forget the
> wrongs we think have been done to us in the past and try to move forward.
> >>
> >> My advice to authors of any policy proposals is this: Instead of
> saying "this is why I am right and you must support my policy
> proposal", you could try saying "section xyz of my proposal attempts
> to solve this problem by doing abc, what do you think?". As much as
> you seek to be understood, you should also seek to understand others'
> positions. People have short attention span and it is possible they do
> not fully understand what you are proposing; your manner of approach
> will determine if they take their scarce time to appreciate the issue
> or not. If on the other hand, their objections are out of ignorance,
> it will become obvious if you engage them in an accommodating manner.
> >>
> >> In the past twenty or so years, I have sold products or services in
> one form or the other and I have learnt that customers buy when the
> product/service being offered is easy to understand. I sell more when
> I take no more than two different products to them; when I take a
> larger array of products, their brains switch from buying mode and
> they usually end up not taking a decision. I think all policy
> proposers should think like salesmen trying to get their customers to
> make a buying decision. I understand that not everyone agrees with
> this approach but I just thought I should mention it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dewole.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "abel ELITCHA" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>
> >> To: "dewole" <dewole at forum.org.ng>
>
> >> Cc: "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "Honest Ornella GANKPA"
> <honest1989 at gmail.com>, "ALAIN AINA" <Alain.Aina at wacren.net>, "rpd"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>, "jordi palet" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:22:53 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal
> >>
> >> Dear Dewole,
> >>
> >> The current PDP as we read it in CPM at section 3.3[1] says :
> >>
> >> ‘The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its
> administrative functions.
> >>
> >> Cochairs role and responsibilities are listed as follow [2]:
> >>
> >> ######
> >> • Determining whether there is consensus during open policy
> discussions.
> >> • Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings.
> >> • Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last
> Call).
> >> • Sending a report on the outcomes of policy discussions at
> public policy meetings to the Board of Directors.
> >> #####
> >>
> >> THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SO FAR.
> >>
> >> If PDP-BIS is adopted, cochairs role and responsibilities will be
> as follow:[3]
> >>
> >> ####
> >>
> >> 2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting
> >>
> >> 2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting
> >>
> >> • Introduce a policy proposal into the adoption phase
> >> • Announce policy proposals to the policy discussion mailing list
> >> • Discourages any behaviour that jeopardizes open participation to
> policy discussions, especially for newcomers.
> >> • Monitors and moderate discussions held on AFRINIC policy
> discussion mailing list ( rpd at afrinic.net)
> >> • Announces the call for presentation of policy proposals for
> Public Policy Meetings on the policy discussion mailing list,
> >> • Read submitted proposals
> >> • Remain subscribed to AFRINIC RPD and member-discuss lists during
> his term.
> >> • At the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting, read initiators' slides to
> familiarize themselves with the details and ensure it matches proposal
> text. In case of any difference, submission of an updated version of
> the proposal on rpd list to notify the working group is required, even
> if these changes will not be considered.
> >> • Create agenda presentation slides for the meeting with the
> AFRINIC staff.
> >> • Guide the consensus gauging process; announces the current phase
> of a policy proposal.
> >> • Read AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting minutes and makes corrections
> as necessary
> >> • Present the policy discussion working group report to the AFRINIC
> Public Policy Meeting.
> >>
> >> 2.1.2 After a Public Policy Meeting
> >>
> >> • Send report of Public Policy Meeting to the community and policy
> discussion mailing lists including policy proposal discussion outcomes
> and open action items.
> >> • Monitor and moderate discussion during the concluding phase for
> comments period.
> >> • Summarize discussions and, following the end of the call for
> comments, post the decision regarding whether the proposal has reached
> rough consensus or not.
> >>
> >> 2.1.3 During a Public Policy Meeting
> >>
> >> • Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the discussions
> >> • Determine whether rough consensus has been achieved during the
> Public Policy Meeting
> >> • Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the AFRINIC Public
> Policy Meeting
> >> • Present the policy discussion working group report to the AFRINIC
> Public Policy Meeting.
> >>
> >> ######
> >>
> >> IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WITH PPD-BIS, CHAIRS WILL HAVE A MORE ACTIVE
> ROLE AND THE WHOLE PROCESS WILL DRASTICALLY IMPROVED. ONLINE
> DISCUSSIONS WILL BE MONITORED, MODERATED AND SUMMARISED. ISSUES LIST
> WILL BE MANAGED AND PROGRESS TRACKED.
> >> BIG CHANGES COMPARED TO THE CURRENT UNCONTROLLED EMAILS FLOW WHICH
> CONFUSE PEOPLE, LEAVE THE DISCUSSIONS AMONG A SMALL GROUP AND HENCE
> LIMIT PARTICIPATION.
> >>
> >> Hope this answers your questions
> >>
> >> [1] https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP
> >> [2] https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#guide
> >> [3] Chairs roles and responsibilities in a separate document named
> ‘pdwg guidelines and procedures’. Unfortunately the link pointing to
> this document attached to the proposal, is broken : see section 3.3 at
> https://afrinic.net/fr/policy/2017-gen-002-d4#proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>> Le 22 mai 2019 à 13:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Hi Komi, all,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El 22/5/19 10:30, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> 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....
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> cochairs...
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> the rest.
> >>>
> >>> 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 ?
> >>> http://www.theipv6company.com
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190527/72a4f100/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list