Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting
abscoco at gmail.com
Tue Dec 24 12:41:32 UTC 2019
Please see my comments below (inline)...
2019-12-24 0:22 UTC+01:00, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>:
>> How are you, brother ?
> I'm good, thank you! How are you?
...not in my best physical state right now.
But what counts it's that THE LORD is keeping me ;-)
Then, i'm thankful !
>>>> For better or worse, however, the current PDP does not give co-chairs power over accepting or rejecting updates.
>>> I think they do. They are tasked with making sure the PDP is followed,
>> ...yes, but to which purpose ?
> So that policy development is done according to the set rules.
Thanks for your response.
...if i was a PDWG's Chair, i would have chosen to discuss it
on the RPD mailinglist ; then (if necessary) privately
with the concerned authors. To be clearer with them, about
the risk of non consensus they clearly chose to experience :-)
...i'm not yet a Chair though :'-(
>>> and the PDP says a new version must address the raised issues.
>> ...problem : “MUST” seems to be the missing word on CPM 3.4.1 :-/
> It says "The author(s) shall make the necessary changes to the draft policy
> according to the feedback received."
> It doesn't say "The author(s) may make…" or "The author(s) can make…". In
> this context "shall" means "must". RFC 2119 also defines it as such as its
> very first definition:
Many thanks, brother, i will keep it more, in mind, this time ;-)
> 1. MUST
> This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
...agreed ! thanks again !
>>> If the author violates the PDP by not doing that the chairs have to deny
>>> the update.
...but still disagree to this :-)
Note that my concern is simple : to enforce PDP, the Chairs
MUST follow it or Varying it...
>> ...by doing what ?
>> Don't forget that the PDP  is roughly clear about what the Chairs can
>> do :-)
> The text "Two community elected co-Chairs guide discussions, gauge consensus
> and ensure that transparency is upheld. They also ensure that the PDP is
> followed as per the agreed process."
...well ! Then we MUST also add here [*] a text like this one :
“[...] In order to enforce the PDP, the Chairs SHALL (MUST) take any
reasonable/useful decision for the purpose [...]”?
In fact, i'm trying to say that : i agree, the Chairs have (intrinsically)
the duty to enforce the PDP. But in our context there is not
sufficient provision to do it as it's understandable.
Right now, the Chairs need to justify any enforcing action
in exploiting an evidence of emergency...
That's all my point... :-)
> comes directly from the Afrinic website
> for example).
...thanks for the URI.
>> If i'm reading  well, the Chairs have the power to declare (CPM
>> 3.4.2) consensus (rough), and that's a sufficient power because of the
>> word rough !
>> ...and yes ! to Varying the Process (CPM 3.6); which appears to be not
>> too easy to implement, finally :-/
>> Or am i missing something ? :-/
>> ...please elaborate.
> The basic meaning of "being a chair" of a group that has defined rules with
> which it operates. The person presiding over the group (= the chair) has the
> responsibility and authority to enforce the defined rules. In addition to
> the basic role of chairing the working group the chairs have additional
> tasks/responsibilities that are defined in the rules (= the PDP), but that
> doesn't diminish their fundamental task of presiding over the working
...yes, of course !
But this PDP is not allowing them to enforce it the way you explain.
To get it done, maybe one needs to follow the example of Owen ? :-/
Best Regards !
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> |
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«*Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec
vous tous! #Amen!*»
#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)
More information about the RPD