Hi colleagues,
Op 28 mei 2014, om 10:07 heeft Randy Bush het volgende
geschreven:
>> I think 100% fixed rule is not appropriate for our community, but do
>> you have any idea to improve current description?
>
> i like the ietf draft to which i keep pointing [0]
Yes, that is a very good docume
> IMO, another problem is the consensus and Chairs' decision making
> process are not well described in SIG guideline (and almost nothing in
> PDP), so Chairs have too much flexibility when making decision.
as the saying goes, that's why they get the big bucks. of course they
don't get any bucks.
Izumi and All,
Let me add one more point.
Since the consensus is vital part of our PDP, don't we need to describe it
in PDP document, not in SIG guideline?
Rgs,
Masato
On 14/05/27 21:06, "Izumi Okutani" wrote:
>Yamanishi-san, all,
>
>
>Thanks for your feedback Yamanishi-san.
>
>Describing
Randy and Dean,
On 14/05/21 1:22, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>> And even if today's chairs are able to use it as a single input into
>> their decision making process, I think that it maybe too tempting a
>> fall back for future chairs.
>
>$100 says that we will be voting within five years
IMO, anot
Yamanishi-san, all,
Thanks for your feedback Yamanishi-san.
Describing consensus more clearly - I am happy to work on it. Since
there is already an IETF document, we can perhaps use it as the basis
rather than defining from scratch?
Clarifying who expressesd what opinion
> However, since it is
Izumi and All,
Sorry for late reply.
> 1) When there is a big difference in discussions and positions
> expressed by e-consensus, Chair/Co-Chair will not only judge based
> on e-consensus (which is what we do today)
I can confirm it, but please also see my comments for next point.
> 2) Describ
Hi all,
Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. It's helpful to know there
are a few others who share the same concern.
I think this can actually be addressed by what I suggested.
In general, I think this is a good initiative to support wider
participation in the process, with also helpin
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> All,
>
> I support Izumi in this concern.
>
> I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people
> will think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will
> get grumpy and there will be all sorts of i
> And even if today's chairs are able to use it as a single input into
> their decision making process, I think that it maybe too tempting a
> fall back for future chairs.
$100 says that we will be voting within five years
this is a bad path
randy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resourc
All,
I support Izumi in this concern.
I agree that electronic measurement is a good idea... BUT, yes, people will
think it is a vote. If the Chairs go against this 'vote', people will get
grumpy and there will be all sorts of issues... especially when a vote is
close.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Steven
And even if today's chairs are able to use it as a single input into
their decision making process, I think that it maybe too tempting a
fall back for future chairs.
I'm unconvinced as well.
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz
To prom
> My concern is e-consensus system may be more easily confused as an
> electric voting.
i strongly agree with this concern.
i suspect that we are a bunch of engineers trying to use technology to
compensate for not being sensitive to our membership/audience. boys and
their toys, is the american i
Yamanishi-san,
> Yes, we plan to ask by e-consensus system for both of physical
> participants and remote participants.
> However, we also use traditional way (showing hands for physical
> participants and chat for remote participants)
> as I mentioned in previous e-mail.
Understood.
If we try b
Yamanishi-san,
Thank you for taking your time to explain,
I got the impression we discussed most of the points in Warsaw last week
so I am slightly confused what you think I misunderstand.
Never the less, it is still helpful to see this summary and for sharing
with others, so thank you.
1)-3):
Izumi,
Sorry, I forgot to answer one of your questions.
>Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including
>those at the venue?
Yes, we plan to ask by e-consensus system for both of physical
participants and remote participants.
However, we also use traditional way (showing
Izumi,
Thank you for raising your concern.
I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding,
let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system.
1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when
deciding the consensus
As we did in past, Cha
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> That said, it would be great to receive some guidance from the community
> before the next meeting, because I am sure there are many issues to be
> considered. So I hope your message starts a good discussion. :-)
>
Adam did some very excell
>
>
> * Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote
> participants.
Yes, but how the current system is stopping and demotivating remote
participants to participate actively?
> * Question:
> I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting.
> If thi
Thanks for raising this question Izumi.
I have just recently asked APNIC staff to revisit this issue so that we have
something useful to present at the next policy SIG. I can çertainly see a
possibility of some kind of demonstration or trial at the next meeting, but the
Secretariat would never
Hi all,
I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37
about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online.
Consensus Measurement
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus-measurement_1393475895.pdf
These are the points I discussed
21 matches
Mail list logo
