I have a procedural question, in yesterdays policy sig prop-69 was
deemed to have reached consensus. However the presenter and co-author
after being asked a question (post consensus) said he would take the
policy back to his co-authors to include wording and examples on
minimum allocations. as below:
IZUMI OKUTANI: Can I ask a question? So are you going to define the
minimum size for this or how do you address that point that I raised
earlier?
AXEL PAWLIK: I will take that back to the author's group. We can
certainly put in some examples to make it easier to understand and
something like that.
IZUMI OKUTANI: At the minimum allocation size as well.
AXEL PAWLIK: We can, yeah.
My interpretation is that this would abrogate the consensus call and
mean the policy would be re-drafted and returned to the mailing list
to complete the policy life-cycle, or require a further consensus call
based on actual wording defined at the meeting, as demonstrated in the
collaborative efforts of prop-50.
my inclination, as chair, is the following
the changes proposed are "put in some examples to make it easier to
understand" and to clarify a minimum allocations size.
the eight week post-meeting mailing list review should be sufficient
to be sure we still have consensus on such minor tuning of this
proposal.
of course, we have to see what they change.
does anyone have strong objection to this?
randy