Search RPD Archives
[rpd] impact analysis for policies
Sylvain BAYA
abscoco at gmail.com
Sat Jun 22 09:10:20 UTC 2019
Hi all,
...please see below (inline).
Le 6/20/2019 à 11:38 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :
>
> Hi Sylvain,
>
>
>
> Responding below, in-line.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 20/6/19 22:31, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com
> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I agree with the concern raised by Jordi below.
>
> We must try to fix it together.
>
> It sound like a policy issue :-/
>
>
>
> ...other comments, inline, below please.
>
>
>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I will like to ask the staff to complete *ASAP* their impact
> analysis in the policy proposal
>
>
>
> Jordi, even if it's desirable, to have such an impact analysis at
> time, you can not (policily speaking) ask for it this way (contact the
> staff privately or propose a suitable process with a reasonable timing
> ?) :-)
>
>
>
> You probably missed this before, but we already discussed in the list
> the need to have on-time an impact analysis for all the policies.
>
...no because i was, hiddenly, following this [1] thread ;-) and what i
said was extracted from there :-)
> It is part of the process (no something new that I’m trying to impose).
>
I wasn't thinking it :-)
But i was just trying to, silently, recall the process as provisioned by
the CPM section 3.4.1.
CPM section 3.4.1 : «[...]The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC
to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of the
impact of the draft policy proposal.[...]»
...i think we must follow our rules or change them if they appear to be
broken somewhere. Right ?
> I may agree that if a proposal has been submitted only 10 days before
> the meeting, it may be difficult to make it in time, but not for a
> “new” version of an existing proposal, which already had the analysis
> impact.
>
Ok if it's unpractical, we should try to modify the CPM, at section
3.4.2, to fix|ameliorate what seems to be broken...
CPM section 3.4.2 : «[...]No change can be made to a draft policy within
one week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft
policy can be considered at the meeting.[...]»
> And of course, I’ve asked the staff several times for it, during the
> last weeks. Co-chairs were copied.
>
Ok, i personaly think that it is legitimate to want to move things
forward ; but i also understand (policily speaking) that the staff was
in their rights to not considere your *direct* request as a legitimate
one. Even though i guess they were just busy :-)
> Precisely, most of the newer versions, at least in the case of my
> proposals, where to address the points raised in the impact analysis.
> So, it should be easy to get the previous impact analysis, compare the
> differences of the old and new versions of the policy proposal,
> against the impact analysis, and raise if something is missing.
>
:-) i'm sure that at least one of them (policy liaison?) might be reading...
Do you think we should also (policily speaking) ask one of them (say the
same staff member i mentioned above) to follow|read the discussions and
react when we need|seek their expertise ? :-D
> Believe me, in most of the proposals, this is a matter of few hours of
> dedication. My only concern is if staff is overbooked, which is
> something that should be evaluated by the organization (not authors).
>
First, have we already tried to fix the problem with our means (the
policy) ?
Secondly, is it possible ?
We know that the staff has their job description (within SLC - Service
Level Commitment) and if something is not clearly included into their
duties, it could be difficult to get them to do it, at time, even if
they are not busiest...
> I agree that *one* of my proposals, sent 1 months in advance to the
> meeting, may require “more than a month” to do the analysis impact,
> but not all the other ones.
>
>
>
> If publicly, i think you should ask it to the new Co-chairs (Moses &
> Abdulkarim), with the appropriate Policy provision for them to act
> kickly accordingly.
>
>
>
> Poor Moses and Abdulkarim, you want me to stress them the first day?
> Just joking.
>
...have you read the mail of Abdulkarim ? I think, at least that guy is
ready for the task :-)
> I’m pretty sure I have briefly talked about this with at least one of
> them.
>
>
>
> Note that I’ve sent the email to the list as suggested by some talks
> with community folks. Is not to blame anyone from the staff, is to
> make sure that we avoid repeating it in the future.
>
...because it's important to the best of the PDWG (Policy Development
Working Group), let's try to *rule* it inside the PDP [2] (Policy
Development Process).
>
>
> Hope you will not have to realise such an impact analysis by yourself
> as suggested by some participants ; if i recall well :'-(
>
>
>
> Don’t recall that comment, unless you refer to those that asked me to
> have the numbers, which is something I can’t have, is the staff to
> provide. I’ve actually asked for that for my presentation, but didn’t
> got a response. Just used to it.
>
>
>
> Of course, if I can help doing the impact analysis, I’m always happy.
>
Good to know. It gives me an idea...
> However, I think it is much more coherent that is done by staff, as
> probably will be more objective and they can discover issues that I
> can read my own text 100 times and not see them.
>
You are right !
> This is the normal process:
>
> 1. Authors submit the proposal
> 2. Proposal is published (sometimes it takes too long) and discussion
> starts
> 3. Staff do the impact analysis
> 4. Staff and authors review impact analysis in case something was
> misunderstood, etc., for example this may happen when English is
> not your native language and you try to write something in a way
> that staff can’t read the same way you do and it may be so broken
> that it changes key aspects of the proposal
> 5. Staff publish impact analysis
> 6. At some point, authors looking at list discussion and impact
> analysis, submit a new version, so we are back at the start point.
>
Thanks for your support. I really appreciate.
...for point 3, i agree that if you only considere this [3] old chart,
you will be right ; but the useful rules are at CPM section 3.4.1 ; also
pasted above.
I think that this [3] chart could also be ameliorated...because imho it
can misguide.
> that didn't reached consensus, so the authors can publish new
> versions immediately and have more time to discuss before the next
> meeting.
>
> I've submitted some proposals that are new version of existing
> ones some of them even 2 months before the meeting, and the impact
> analysis has not been updated.
>
> I think this is actually an extreme delay for such impact analysis
> update, and this doesn't help the authors to correct mistakes and
> consequently makes more difficult for the community to take a
> decision.
>
>
>
> ...this seems to prove a need for a new version of the PDP (Policy
> Development Process) :-/
>
> A candidate rule to update ?
>
>
>
> There is a process already for that, simply is not being followed timely.
>
...it seems as there is something to fix :-)
Considering what i have said above, do you admit that, as it is, the
process is flaw ?
>
>
> The impact for this is really big. Right now, we have 8 policy
> proposals that didn't reached consensus and only considering new
> proposal that I've in mind to submit (5), it means that for the
> next meeting we will have *at least* 13 policy proposals in the table.
>
>
>
> ...other might also propose drafts for new policy proposals :'-(
>
>
>
> I hope so, more people contributing, and yes, that’s why I said “at
> least” :-)
>
>
>
> :-) but please withdraw one of your two similar policy proposals about
> out of AFRINIC region resource (IPv4) transfers. That action could
> diminish the number of policy proposals ;-)
>
>
>
> Remember that I presented them jointly, with the same time for two
> proposals, that for a single one, so actually that’s not taking time.
> Anyway, if we can have a “clear” decision in the list from now to the
> next meeting, I’m happy to withdraw one of them, but this is only
> going to work if we have 200 voices in the list supporting one of
> those. Otherwise, I can withdraw the wrong one and then in the
> meeting, the participants decision withdraws the other one, so we have
> nothing. You see the point?
>
...so you don't want to take the *risk* (i don't actualy see a risk,
though) ? :-)
__
[1]: Thread about Impact Analysis -
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009026.html
[2]: PDP - https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP-Process
[3]: PDP Chart 2011 - https://afrinic.net/ast/img/pdp_chart2011.png
Friendly,
--sb.
>
>
> Friendly,
>
> --sb.
>
>
>
> So either we have a "2 days" policy day, or we find the way for
> every participant to read in advance all the policies and provide
> inputs, or it is impossible to be able to really have a
> presentation that is making sense for the people to determine
> their opinion in each policy proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> [...]
>
--
Regards,
Sylvain B.
<http://www.chretiennement.org>
__
Website : <https://www.cmnog.cm>
Wiki : <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>
Surveys : <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
Mailing List's Archives : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/>
Last Event's Feed : <https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOGlab3>
<https://twitter.com/cmN0G>
<https://facebook.com/cmNOG>
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/REBOOTcmNOG>
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOG>
<https://cmnog.wordpress.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190622/7bb87fb8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x0387408365AC8594.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190622/7bb87fb8/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190622/7bb87fb8/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the RPD
mailing list