Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:50:59AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > How does one go about restricting future policy proposals?
Re-read https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642, this is not easily doable within the PDP (which makes sense). One could argue that "The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WGs" (2.1, "Creating a proposal") would give the WG chair veto power, but that's not the idea here - it's "the WG chair *helps* with the submission" (and while we've tried talking proposers out of particularily contentious proposals before, when they insisted in going forward, we've let them gain their own experiences...). So, the one true way would be to call for WG consensus on guidelines how a future proposal *should* be (OTOH there might be reasons for having exceptions, hard to predict...) and measure future proposals on these guidelines. (In case it's not obvious why we, as the WG, would *want* to go there: what is happening right now is totally killing our policy development process - heated and repetitive discussions, with lots of selfish or irrational arguments, effectively burning valuable attention time from those who are still interested in contributing to the common goal of a sustainable Internet, working mostly well for all of us) 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
