Hi all,
Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this
community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions
against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the ch
Hi Jordi,
Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea.
Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of
bureaucracy. Creating an appeals committee is about the worst way to
deal with your unhappiness that the chairs don't agree with you.
The current policy alre
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05:
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually
decided not to publish it, or delayed it.
Jordi,
without prejudice to any of the proposals th
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
> ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)
Hi, Jordi, all
On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well?
Andy
[0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters
Hi Sander,
The last appeal demonstrated that:
1) Folks that should haven’t participated in the appeal, actually participated.
It is clear that if you had a previous clear idea about a proposal, and even
exposed it in the list during the discussion, shouldn't participate in the
appeal. I think
Hi Andy,
I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), but the
staff suggested against ... I understood some of the points of the disagreement
by the staff, but I'm still open to have it again if the community believes is
the right way.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Hi Nick,
El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05:
> Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
> chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually
> decided not to publi
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote on 07/02/2021 22:04:
El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to
RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and
responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of
> Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea.
> Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of
> bureaucracy.
+42
let's try to keep ripe a community, not a bureaucracy, political maze,
or mindless conformity. diverse opinions are good and healthy. more
rul
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 22:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
> wrote:
>
> I agree that the chairs may decide that it may be "out of the scope of the
> WG", but nothing else.
Deciding something's “out of scope for the WG” can be a diplomatic way to avoid
embarrassing the proposer(s).
WG c
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
> 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’
Anno domini 2021 Jim Reid scripsit:
> > On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
> > 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 does
12 matches
Mail list logo
