Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
- Previous message (by thread): Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
- Next message (by thread): Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu May 8 18:48:28 CEST 2014
Hi, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > At Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote: > > > > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > > > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. > > > > Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a > > consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be > > responsible for making that happen. > > > > I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE > > needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. > > As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, > "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may > as well choose the appropriate correction. I had expected to read something about the decision sitting with the WG or the WG chair. I wondered whether "proposals" was a typo for "proposer", hence the question. Regards, Leo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5495 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20140508/fb990ba0/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
- Next message (by thread): Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]