<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Alston <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-4196433509483747204WordSection1"><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u>Is there any policy that has ever been proposed through consultation of the wider community. Last I checked, all the policies were and are proposed by individuals without a wider consultation from the wider community and the community
only comes in after the authors have submitted their proposal. It has always been the norm. <u></u><u></u></u></i></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></i></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><u>This approach you propose intends to cause unnecessary stalemate similar to the situations where folk decide to come up with counter policies against other policy proposals as a way of disagreement thereby confusing and wasting
the communities time which is counter-productive hence the current deadlock. </u></i></b><i><u><u></u><u></u></u></i></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></i></p>
</div>
</span><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Noah,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. </p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No it doesn't. </div><div><br></div><div>No Author/Authors have ever consulted the wider community before proposing a policy. I don't know of any such inquiry to the wider community by prospective authors of a new policy prior to a policy proposal. That is what I meant and its the 1st time someone is suggesting the same.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-4196433509483747204WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal">no one has ever attempted the approach I am now suggesting – and perhaps if we had it would have avoided the many failed policies that have hit the floor or the
massive time to get a policy passed. </p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes no one, because the norm has always been simple. Some Authors propose a policy and the community get involved through pdp until its either ratified or withdrawn. All the current active policies passed through the same process because it works just fine.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-4196433509483747204WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"> Your second statement is that the approach I suggest causes stalemate and leads to certain situations. That is unfounded, because by your own admission, it has never been attempted before and therefore you cannot make
a statement about what it will lead to. </p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Its not unfounded. My point was based on the argument that, I have seen cases of folk coming up with counter-policies as opposition to other policy proposals.</div><div><br></div><div>This culture of proposing counter-policies is what has caused a stalemate because you find two policies trying to achieve the same goal and the community is forced to divide itself hence failure to progress. </div><div><br></div><div>When soft-landing-BIS was posted. Before we could deliberate, oppose, suggest modification to it, within a few days we had another policy proposal called soft-landing overhaul posted for discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>Now we as a community found ourselves in the middle of deliberating two policies that are trying to achieve the same goal instead of concentrating on one policy at a time. We could have added our voices of opposition, proposition and suggestions to improve one policy and if no consensus send it back to mailing list since pdp process allows all this. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-4196433509483747204WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just because something has always been done one way – does not mean we should not try an alternative if the current method is failing us, and I would argue based on what we have seen over the last few years, the current way of doing things
is not working nearly as well as it should be, so lets try something new?</p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The current way has no problem as long as counter policy proposals don't become the norm since discussing a simple policy is far simpler and quicker to withdraw or ratify than two policies trying to achieve same goal.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-4196433509483747204WordSection1"><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<u></u><u></u></p>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> </p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Noah </div></div>
</div></div>