Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Thu May 8 19:44:20 CEST 2014
On 8 May 2014, at 17:54, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote: > "This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place. Filiz, we are talking at cross-purposes. I was not remotely suggesting a heavyweight "WG consensus decision". Which I think you think I was. [You should know me far better than that. I am the Ayatollah of anti-process.] What I envisaged was nothing more than somebody saying "I think this proposal needs N weeks of discussion", the WG shrugging in approval and then that informal, lightweight decision getting written up as part of the proposal's documentation. Anyways, this is all somewhat moot. I ask that we stop rat-holing on this document and either accept it as-is or reject it. The focus of the discussion should be on the *changes* to RIPE500 in Sections 2.4 and 4. If we continue to pick nits and wordsmith by mailing list, we'll never get this completed. Getting the WG Chairs Collective to make a consensus decision has proven to be harder than nailing jelly to a wall. It's also turned out to be unnecessary. The revised text gets rid of that and also simplifies the Appeals Procedure. If the revised text is adopted, it should make the PDP more effective and speedy than it is today. If the PDP document needs further work, let's do that after RIPE500-bis is accepted. If that extra work has to be done now, we're going to be stuck with the current failing PDP for at least another year, possibly longer, and I hope nobody wants that.