00:35:52 Brian Nisbet (he/him): Afternoon!
00:40:46 Herve Clement: RIPE chair or chairS ?
00:41:11 Peter Koch: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/policy-development-process-in-ripe
00:41:20 Cynthia Revström: how much happened before this slide? (I got in at 16:05)
00:42:43 Brian Nisbet (he/him): Cynthia, very little, mostly scene setting.
00:42:55 Cynthia Revström: ah :)
00:44:41 Peter Koch: authorship != change control, though
00:46:56 Niall OReilly: I’m not jealous about authorship 8-)
00:47:04 Herve Clement: :)
00:51:05 Daniel Karrenberg: To clarify my soapbox again: Documents do not just jump into existance. they are written by *people*. In order to understand the document itself and its history,
00:52:06 Jordi Palet Martínez: That will be the same problem for any policy
00:52:14 Jordi Palet Martínez: so not specific to the PDP in my opinion
00:52:58 Rüdiger Volk: Authors, Proposers, change control, consensus status, validity status etc. should be carefully documented meta data for all documents
00:53:26 Peter Koch: the PDP does NOT define where policy applies, and of course regulation would prevail
00:53:46 Cynthia Revström: @Peter, thanks that's a good point
00:56:38 Peter Koch: arriving at the ITU in less than one minute! ;-)
00:57:48 jim reid: I spend *too* much time on planet ITU Peter.
00:57:48 Leo Vegoda: I broadly support the call for a short, high level document. We should build in flexibility wherever possible and rely on people to apply good sense rather than a set of prescriptive rules
00:57:56 Jordi Palet Martínez: The WG is the plenary, we have done that
00:58:12 Daniel Karrenberg: What Ruediger said of course applies too. I consier ripe-727 to be a fair example of how to do this. It has authors and an appendix about the document genesis.
00:59:14 Brian Nisbet (he/him): We have applied the PDP to the PDP before, in the plenary, however I do prefer a higher level, rare, change process, as described. Especially as it is likely that any discussion about the PDP will end up not fitting neatly into certain timelines etc.
00:59:27 Jordi Palet Martínez: no having concrete rules and timing to modify the PDP creates helplessness, random results depending on the wishes of a few, etc., etc
01:00:01 Jordi Palet Martínez: so if we don’t apply the PDP to the PDP, then we need the PDP to contain an specific process step by step. It doesn’t make sense to duplicate that
01:01:35 Peter Koch: the entry level screening for changes to the PDP should probably much stricter for the PDP itself as it has evolved generally more recently
01:02:39 Cynthia Revström: it says
> Recording is on, so the account owner and everyone in the meeting can see and save messages sent to Everyone - and can share them with apps and others.
01:02:47 Max Stucchi: The person who is doing the recording gets a text of the chat as well
01:03:20 Daniel Karrenberg: @ jordi: who is helpless? how are results random or more random? how specifically are outcomes more biased?
01:03:22 Cynthia Revström: (you can click on the "who can see your messages? recording on" above the chat box)
01:04:33 Jordi Palet Martínez: @Daniel, if you don’t know the timing of a PDP change, you may miss contributing, objecting, etc., etc. Also if the timing is not fixed in advance, it means that there is no way to ensure that *always* is the same
01:05:10 jim reid: Jordi, “random results depending on the wishes of a few” is clearly nonsense. The results depend on the consensus view of the community.
01:05:36 Jordi Palet Martínez: @Jim, it is reality when the procedure is not well defined in advance in a fix way.
01:06:12 Daniel Karrenberg: @jordi:i could argue that stringent rules cause the same things by restricting flexibility and enabling gaming attacks.
01:07:03 Cynthia Revström: Jordi, while I don't personally think it is needed, are you looking something like requiring at least 30 days between announcing on the ripe list and making a final call on the consensus?
01:07:04 Jordi Palet Martínez: @Daniel, no, if you know the timing, you can’t complain “I was late, timing is not consistent”. this is why all legal procedures, public administration communication, etc, has specific timing.
01:07:24 Cynthia Revström: Jordi, this is not a legal document and especially not a law
01:08:07 Jordi Palet Martínez: @Cynthia, 30 days is too short, you need probably 3-4 months, in several phases, that’s they way we arrived to the different phases for the policies, and it is the same experience in the other RIRs, for a good reason
01:08:35 jim reid: Proposals to change the PDP get openly discussed. You know this Jordi because you’ve generated some of them. :-) And as for “missing the chance to contribute”, that’s me like asking for the World Cup Final to be replayed because I missed the game. I fail to understand how anyone could not know about a proposed change to the PDP or how to respond to that.
01:08:46 Jordi Palet Martínez: never mind is not a legal document, if we aren’t fair, it could be appealed in the courts, we like it or not
01:09:01 Cynthia Revström: what?
01:09:05 Daniel Karrenberg: @jordi: this is not needed for community processes other than appeals.
01:11:01 Jordi Palet Martínez: Regarding appeals: It has been said many times, even Daniel supported this: the WGCC is not fair, and it has been proved in the previous appeal, for managing appeals. Some of the WG chairs that participated in the discussion (not the specific WG chairs itself), didn’t recused themselves. WG chairs are colleagues, it is human imposible to not support your colleagues …
01:11:42 Cynthia Revström: Jordi, ok that is just not true, I can disagree with my colleagues and even close friends
01:11:42 randy: i hope we are all colleagues
01:12:28 Daniel Karrenberg: we are all colleagues, some of us even are friends, i have a sbstantive history of disagreeing with both olleagues and friends
01:14:27 randy: i have a record of disagreeing with myself, spoke against two internet drafts on which i was co-author 🙂
01:14:28 Jordi Palet Martínez: @Daniel, some of us (including me), know how to be objective even if we disagree with friends, but this is not true for everyone
01:14:52 Peter Koch: @Brian: random set was a random idea, overloading WG chair duties (many these days are program committees rather than equipped with PDP experience, maybe luckily so)
01:15:11 Peter Koch: … overloading … is a bad idea, IMHO
01:16:47 Cynthia Revström: Would it be possible to outsource the facilitator to someone at the NCC? (in the cases when no other suitable person is found)
01:17:07 jim reid: Well said Daniel: cut the legalese and just use common sense.
01:18:33 jim reid: Cynthia, outsourcing this just moves the goalposts. Who decides the external facilitator is impartial? How? And how is that facilitator chosen => yet more legalese?
01:19:08 Cynthia Revström: impartial by means of possibly being someone on the legal team would be my idea
01:19:34 Cynthia Revström: as I imagine they are used to having to remain impartial in some tasks
01:20:24 Cynthia Revström: ofc this wouldn't work for a common process as lawyers are expensive and have other things to do
01:20:35 denis: @Cynthia who says the legal team is impartial, their primary role is to avoid liability to the NCC
01:20:56 Cynthia Revström: hm, fair point I suppose
01:20:57 jim reid: I know what you meant Cynthia. Having a member of the NCC’s legal team be the facilitator creates lots of icky problems.
01:21:14 Peter Koch: WG should be able to re-assign proposal if proposer disapperas
01:21:21 Daniel Karrenberg: what if the ripe ncc has a conflict of interest? we cannot foresee all possible scenarios. that's why it is a pitfall to react to issues by adding more rules and more rules and more rules
01:21:21 Jordi Palet Martínez: agree
01:21:43 Jordi Palet Martínez: (I mean agree with Peter, re-assign a proposal if the authors stop responding)
01:21:54 jim reid: I propose a new rule for the PDP: no more rules!
01:22:09 Brian Nisbet (he/him): If there are people willing to take it on. But of course if there aren't, then it would be unlikely to reach consensus anyway.
01:22:24 Daniel Karrenberg: historically we have found new authors if important work lost authors.
01:22:52 Herve Clement: thanks !! :)
01:23:06 Angela Dall'Ara: Thank you!
01:23:13 Jordi Palet Martínez: bye, tkm!
01:23:16 Jordi Palet Martínez: tks!