Dean,

I like this idea.  Perhaps it would be that this is a part of the Chairs job that if something is submitted, and they look at it and think 'hmmm, this could cause some controversy' or 'the proposer seems inexperienced' then we could 'recommend' that it go through the problem-statement phase.  

But, if they chose to ignore that advice, that would be on them.  But, the policy would go to the list for discussion anyway.


Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve 

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Cloud



On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@deanpemberton.com> wrote:
Evening David,

As I mentioned in a previous email:

>I wouldn't for example support a system which looked like.
>'We are now in the problem discussion phase which will last for a
>minimum of one week.  After which time a Problem Statement will be
>produced' 

I don't believe that the problem is solved by placing more requirements on proposers or more opportunities for the Policy-SIG chairs to 'enforce' policies.  
I believe that the problem can be solved by giving proposers more opportunities to consult with the community before bringing a fully fledged proposal to the table.  As such I have always resisted stating how long or short the steps should be.

I agree with you that there will be times when a direct policy proposal may seem like the best course of action.  I would suggest however, that if the proposer hasn't correctly gauged the feeling of the community, then no matter how urgent the need, those proposals never seem to gain consensus.

I do like your suggestion that this may be a detour that the Policy-SIG chair chooses to put proposals through if they consider it does not have a well defined or supported problem statement.  At the end of the day it is up to the Policy-SIG chair if he/she is willing to accept a policy proposal, it's not a matter of right.  This would allow he/she the right to say:
"I don't think your proposal has a well defined or widely accepted problem statement.  Please discuss this on the list and we can look at you resubmitting."

Thoughts?




*              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