[address-policy-wg] on support and opposition, and the amount of arguments needed (was: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup))

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:29:11PM +0200, Sylvain Vallerot wrote:
> But it is the game, OK, support is easier to formulate. This comes
> from the system of someone writing a proposal and this is a "positive"
> move, so going the counterway requires more writing (and may might seem
> counter-productive) while going the same direction obviously does not
> require to re-write the "pro" arguments that are already in the proposal.

We've discussed this before in one of the address policy WG meetings, and
the modus operandi is 

  a +1 agrees to the proposal *and the reasons behind it*

so there's no need to find new reasons why one would agree with a proposal
(and it's not actually helpful to repeat the reasons already given).

Someone objecting, though, needs to provide a reason for his objection, so
other members of the community or the proposer have a chance to argue the
point, and then either convince the opposer that his point is based on a 
misunderstanding, possibly amend the proposal to take the points raised
into account (which, for example, Tore did with the objections Malcolm
raised), or at least provide counterarguments so the WG chairs and the
community can see "this point of opposition was read, understood, and
answered, even if the opposer might not agree with the argument given".


Consensus does not have to be unanimous, but all (reasonable*) arguments 
brought forward need to be taken into consideration and answered.

("I do not like the proposal because my cat has licked it's left paw,
and that's a bad sign!" would not be a reasonable objection, and could be 
simply ignored).


> This is where I regret by the way, the assymetry between supporting and
> opposing arguments in the rationale.

There is so much inertness built into the current policy system that 
there already is a strong asymmetry anyway - fighting a proposal through
multiple steps of PDP, with headwind in every single phase, is much harder
than "just keep what we have, I oppose all change".

We *do* need changes to adapt to a changing environment - so this balances
things a bit.


I hope to have clarified things a bit more, and we can end the meta
discussions about the amount of arguments that need to be made either
way - but if you feel otherwise, please start a new thread, as this is
not really specific to 2013-03 but to general consensus building.

thanks,

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130925/e82b643e/attachment.sig>