[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Jan 15 13:28:31 CET 2018
Hi Jordi, > I participate on IETF, and I know RFC7282, however I fail to see in our PDP that we are bound to that RFC? As Jim has said, the definition of consensus is determined by consensus :) And for this working group the chairs apply consensus roughly based on that RFC. > I also just read again the PDP, and my understanding is that we are doing something different than what the process say, following > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642 > > I don’t see how a policy proposal that at the end of the review phase (maximum 4 weeks), has not reached consensus, as the only alternative is a “new” review phase, with a new version of the proposal: > > From the PDP: > “The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.” In RIPE the chairs are allowed to use common sense and their own judgement when chairing a working group. Please don't try to make rules for everything, we're not lawyers, we're people trying to get work done in the best interests of this community. Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]