[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal

Fri May 31 08:26:30 UTC 2019

Hi Komi,

El 31/5/19 10:08, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:

Hello Jordi,

You  still don't see the contradiction?  Please review what you wrote.

I did, and again, I don’t see the issue. I will love if someone can clarify what I’m missing.

A non native english speaker should go for an easy English and be less pedantic.

When you aren’t native, you tend to write following the writing style for your own language. This is not easy to avoid.

There are many other non english speakers like you, struggling over there  to understand and contribute. This  is another strong motivation for a good moderation ( organise the discussions, make sure, people use easy english, provide  regular summary of discussions...) so that everyone has the same understanding and do not fall under individual  interpretation of the language....)

This is asking too much from the chairs. They can’t interpret each message and clarify to the rest of the community in their own “writing styles”. Is simply impossible. Even more this is not done in any other region, neither in the IETF. Maximum chairs do in *one* specific WG in IETF (v6ops), is, when there are several documents under discussion, they send a *single* message to the list asking the people to read and comment about one document every week. I can tell you that even that is not working, people read the documents if they wish and when they can. No sense to change in the PDP chairs functions for that, in my opinion is an impossible micro-management.

PDP key principles:  bottom-up,  inclusiveness, openness and transparency  is well known and no moderation shall  go against them. 

Moderation's definition of PDP-BIS can be found in the PDP document through chairs actions at each stage of proposal  lifecycle, and in the  working group operation guidelines which conforms to BCP25 definition.

On your last point, coauthors  of PDP-BIS  have answered  all your  mails, including the November's one you referred to,  even  those not all mails require response.

This is not true, even before Dakar, there is at least one message that was not responded, and what one of the co-authors told me in the Dakar meeting was “I’m not reading the mailing list”. This is something I can’t expect from proposal authors.

HTH

Komi

Le 25 mai 2019 à 19:24, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> a écrit :

Hi Arnaud,

El 25/5/19 14:57, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:

Hi Jordi

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:

1)      The IETF process is only “on-list”.

2)      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

Arnaud  

**********************************************
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.

**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190531/5b69bed8/attachment-0001.html>