[rpd] timing for impact analysis

[Sylvain BAYA]

Hi all,

Please see below (inline)...

Le 7/9/2019 à 10:51 AM, Arnaud AMELINA a écrit :

>

> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 15:52 Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at afrinic.net

> <mailto:ernest at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>

>     On 5 Jul 2019, at 23:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>     <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>     >

>     > [...]

>

>

> Are we changing the PDP  through staff ? 


Arnaud thanks for these questions.
...no, because the PDP is still the same ;-) but its implementation (IAR
— Impact Analysis 
Report) can be really improved and now we are waiting for real *impact*,
of this single
change, in policy development activities.


> Are we imposing staff analysis to each revision of proposal being

> discussed ? 


IMHO, it's critical to have an IAR published for *every* version of
*any* draft policy proposal.

...but no, we do not, because it's a decision taken (with good
intentions, no doubt, but also
with a bad result after) by the previous WG Chairs and the AFRINIC
Staff, long time (we don't 
know when) before Jordi decides to raise the issue [1].

IMHO, the question could be : Is it actually possible to have that level
of disponibility of IARs ?

...the *YES* answer came from the Staff, but for me i don't care right
now because i will
(if GOD permit) check that affirmation during the coming twelve months
prior to make my 
own conclusion about this solution ; then i will be able to take a
personal new decision 
accordingly.
 

> Are we revoking chairs prerogative to request staff analysis when it

> is needed? 


Honestly, the answer could be yes, only if we consider the whole case
but not if we focus on the
good initiative taken by Jordi. 
...but again, those who abandoned [2] this provision of the CPM section
3.4.1, was our previous 
Chairs and, of course, the Community who was unable to see it happen. I
mean this is broken
since an unknown date [2], as already said above...
 

>  While  new proposal  seems obvious, who decides what is large change

> or small change?


Good question Arnaud. 
...is it not just a matter of *structural* type of draft policy
proposals ? {on this thread [3]
 Jordi did some observations about how the proposed policy changes could
influence the
'complexity' the Staff are facing while realising impact analysis.}
 

> Is this not the cochairs call?


...yes it's the PDWG Chairs responsibility, but now the Staff has just
to convince the new Chairs
 as they did with the previous :-) 
 
IMHO, the diffence with *this agreement* is that there is better outcome
to expect : an IAR
published for *every* version of *any* draf policy proposal.
__
[1]: The entire thread shows that we have tried different solutions,
including a draft policy proposal
only for IARs Timely Publication

: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009540.html

<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009540.html>>
[2]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009033.html
<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009033.html>>
[3]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009542.html>

Hope this could help.

Shalom,
--sb.
 

> Arnaud

> [...]


-- 

Regards,
Sylvain B.
<http://www.chretiennement.org> 
__
Website : <https://www.cmnog.cm>
Wiki : <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190710/508873d1/attachment.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/20190710/508873d1/attachment.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/20190710/508873d1/attachment.sig>