[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Fri Mar 29 22:44:27 CET 2013
On 29 Mar 2013, at 20:46, Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie> wrote: > Does this need to be a policy? No. However we do seem to like to expend time on this kind of rat-holing and shed painting. Perhaps the Easter Bunny will get to join in the discussion this weekend. I am disappointed that cosmetic things like a numbering/naming convention get attention when far more serious problems appear to be ignored: for example the lack of decent search/browse functionality of our list archives to see how a proposal evolves as it goes through the sausage-making machinery or how the consensus decisions have been reached. Or that only two of the ten proposals from last year has managed to get adopted; one was withdrawn and seven are blocked waiting for something to happen. Note this is not a criticism of the people responsible for those proposals or the relevant WG (Chairs) but of the PDP itself. Something looks to have gone badly wrong here and nobody seems to have noticed or cared. I'm even more disappointed I've got nothing better to do with myself on a Friday night than type this. :-)