Re: [sig-policy] Post Prop-103
I'll see if I can work out a set of steps which take these recent
comments into account.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regards,
Dean
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney at verizon dot com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
--
Regards,
Dean