Hi Sander,
On 7/22/16 1:41 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Elvis,
I've had easier discussion to judge, and less repetitive-nonsensical ones.
it says awaiting decision from proposer and not from WG Chairs. That is why I
was asking the proposer.
Just for clarity, this is what the PDP says:
[RIPE-642 section 2.2]
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG
chair, decides whether the proposal will move to the next phase (Review Phase)
or if it should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP, depending on the feedback
received. This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the
Discussion Phase.
than maybe it should be made clearer on the webpage. While I do
appreciate the 'upgrade' of the page - it used to be worse - it can be
improved :)
So the chairs need to make up their minds about if they can agree with the proposer. This involves
a lot of manual work (as Gert said: analysing the mailing list archives etc) so this takes time.
The discussion phase ended on 15 July. And the four week period that is common for that type of
decision hasn't expired yet. And even if it had, it says "should be done" not "must
be done", so if we stick to the definitions of RFC2119 that timeline may be changed if
circumstances require.
In short: if you're going to be pedantic please read the relevant documents
first. The discussion phase has ended. The microphones are closed. And give
your chairs some breathing room to do their (volunteer) jobs properly.
I have, many times, I used to refer to the same documentation when I was
a part-time trainer at the NCC :)
Again, the website says the phase is complete and is "Awaiting Decision
from the Proposer". Maybe it should still be 'green' and not 'blue' and
maybe it should say something else and not 'awaiting a decision from
someone until one week ago'. For example, maybe it should say -
Discussion Period ended on July 15th - 1-4 weeks until next
phase/decision. Or maybe it should have more columns, one for each phase
in this process (+ one for each of the periods in between the phases).
Cheers,
Sander
PS: because I got involved in the discussion and questioned some people's
statements to keep the discussion honest I am abstaining on any decisions
regarding this proposal to avoid any semblance of conflict of interest. This
means Gert is doing all the hard work all by himself...
while I appreciate your position, I was under the impression that Gert -
with his replies on June 20th - did take sides more than you did.
I will leave it to the WG Chairs Collective to decide if he did take
sides or not and whether any of you can still decide consensus on this
policy proposal (ripe-642 3.1 &4).
I do not intend to submit an appeal unless this policy proposal moves
forward to Review Phase.. so I am waiting for the decision of the
proposer - as the website says :)
regards,
Elvis
