Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
Hi Dean,
I agree with Skeeve and David. I like this way better as well. There are
proposals that special interest groups would wish to push out regardless
of whether the Policy co-chairs or the overall mailing list agree there
is a problem to solve. There are also policy wonks out that are fully
capable of defining both broad problems and reasonable solutions not
requiring further, time-wasting debate. In the interests of fair
representation on both of those sides, I would hate to see the current
avenue narrowed or closed entirely.
I do concur, however, that there has been a fairly low s/n ratio in
policy proposals of late, where further focus on defining the problem
their proposal hoped to solve could have perhaps led the authors to
conclude that the proposal was unnecessary or unnecessarily narrow as to
garner the support it needs to be implemented. A sizable number of
policies discussed on the mailing list and presented over the past
several APNIC meetings had overlapping problem statements that could
have benefited from such scrutiny prior to being raised and debated
during the policy meetings. We still experience far too much "fighting
over scraps" as my good/evil twin would say.
Best Regards,
Randy.
On 9/5/2012 6:24 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
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 at eintellego dot net <mailto:skeeve at eintellego dot net> ;
www.eintellego.net <http://www.eintellego.net>
Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellego <http://facebook.com/eintellego> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://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 at deanpemberton dot com
<mailto:dean at deanpemberton dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy