Search RPD Archives
[rpd] timing for impact analysis
kmw.elitcha at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 13:20:24 UTC 2019
> On Jul 12, 2019, at 1:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> This is not particularly difficult to solve. 3.4.1 states “at least”. It doesn’t state that the proposal is entitled to be evaluated for consensus if it is available 4 weeks and 1 day before the meeting.
> I agree that it would be good to update 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 to provide better timeframes (I suggest an 8 week period in 3.4.1 and a 5 week freeze for changes other than those to address the impact analysis or changes of a strictly “editorial” nature.).
Let's not take the easy path with quick patches. With all these known weaknesses and limits, it is better to solve all the identified issues and have a new PDP which reflects what we learnt from past and project us in the future.
>> What will increase participation is a clear and well documented multi steps PDP led by experienced chairs, who make sure every views are heard in a less aggressive and well moderated working group, where cultural and linguistic diversity are promoted, issues and objections are tracked, addressed and resolved.
>> Such PDP will attract participation and produce good policies and contribute to the education of the community.
>> That is what PDP-BIS is about
> I think it misses that mark in a number of ways.
We seem to have an agreement somewhere here. Can you please elaborate on what makes PDP-bis miss this mark and please offer amendements ?
>> - Komi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD