On 23 Mar 2022, at 14:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
We plan to close the review period just before 24:00 UTC on Sunday 10
April next, and to announce a two-week last-call period shortly after
that.
Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we
can understand whether the
Jordi,
I think you are confusing the role of the task force. The TF doesn’t replace or
remove the community’s role in scrutinising and approving any policy - it is
merely a vehicle to produce an analysis or proposal that can act as a starting
point or input to a community process and
On 23/03/2022 14:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
[Please view this message as either plain text or HTML, according to
your preference.]
In view of significant comments received during what we had expected to
be a restricted last call, Mirjam and I have decided to make a fresh
No, you're making the mistake if you interpret that I'm considering a single
case.
When I read any proposed document, I try to think ahead in what can be wrong
"in the future" not just according to the past, because clearly the goal is to
avoid issues in the future. The past only tells us what
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 08:01:23PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
> Clearly the goal is to get the job done.
>
> If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work
> with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and
> c",
Hi Gert,
Clearly the goal is to get the job done.
If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work
with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and c",
the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the others.
So,
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:38:32PM +, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can
> understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus.
I find v3 a reasonable description of the roles and processes of (formal)
task forces, and
One more point that I forgot.
An additional argument to consider my inputs, specially 1 and 2, is that the
creation of a TF, don’t have an appeal process. So, unless we add that
complexity, the best way to avoid it, is precisely to ensure that 1 and 2 are
resolved, so there is no need to
Hi Niall, all,
I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th,
rephrasing them a little bit, considering the new version:
Elements of the TF structure of work (Rationale, Charter, etc.). I don’t agree
it should be the Chair unique responsibility to define them.
Much improved!
I suggest to make the RIPE NCC staff support optional. It may not be
necessery or even appropriate in some cases.
Either way the document has my support.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options,
> On 23 Mar 2022, at 22:29, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> /me likes
>
> randy
I fully agree :)
Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
11 matches
Mail list logo
