[ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

Anno domini 2021 Jim Reid scripsit:

> > On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list at ripe.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I attach the proposal
> 
> I do not support this proposal. It is nonsense. It would add more procedural bloat, needless complexity and extra unwanted bureaucracy*. RIPE doesn’t deserve or need something like this. There’s no justification for it either.
> 
> The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor understanding of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed to the WG Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that earlier judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and doesn’t need to be written down.

+1

> * Just think of endless opportunities for shed-painting and rat-holing over how this supposedly independent and disinterested appeals panel gets selected, its terms of reference, standing orders, what happens mid-appeal if the entire panel disappear in a mysterious boating accident, decision-making when the panel can’t reach consensus, etc, etc. For bonus points, what structure has to be put in place to handle appeals about how this panel made its decisions or how its members were appointed. Where would all this craziness stop?

Funny, that were my thoughts exactly. Let's add the obvious problem on
what to do if something thinks someone on the panel (however elected)
is baised but the person her/himself doesn't think so, etc.

Please let's not go there.

Best
Max
-- 
Friends are relatives you make for yourself.