[LACNIC/Politicas] NP: LAC-2021-6 - Mejora Calidad de Politicas
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Thu Oct 14 16:30:28 -03 2021
Thanks for your input.
The issue from my point of view is that because some people get annoyed
with some proposals presented by a single author which they may not
agree they are trying to find out some mechanism to make it harder for
someone to present a new proposal wishing it will work as a filter to
block such proposals at birth. The proposal hasn't much to do with
improving participation, but only to a tentative to add this extra
filter which may work under certain circumstances to take those
proposals out of the way.
The author says this proposal is not against anyone specifically but we
cannot fool ourselves and pretend it is different than that because the
only complains I have seen so far in recent years was against this
person and disfigure PDP is not a way to resolve these personal
I have absolutely not problem to deal with any proposals that come to
this forum and I dedicate a certain amount of my time to these
discussions according to the importance of each topic. Depending on the
topic I simply choose to not participate.
Perhaps some people wish they could have more time to participate and
they are not able or willing to spare more of their personal time for
that, so they get to blame the amount of proposals for the lack of
participation. Again using a change in the PDP to try resolve a personal
Your contribution was great in different ways that participation and
interest can be improved without changing the natural way proposals have
to be discussed. There are several options that both community and
Co-chairs can use to improve the Policy Development process and
participation, some of which were already proved as effective recently
on different occasions.
Trying to create this little 2 weeks time to trying to kill a proposal
at its birth will only contribute to unfairness and necessary disputes
mainly between authors and Co-Chairs. The actual 8 weeks minimal is
quiet reasonable and servers as a good measure to find out if there will
be interest or not for that idea to advance into a deeper discussion and
be presented in FPP events.
If we organize things better here to apply effectively some of the
points you mentioned in your previous message plus some other discussed
we can certainly improving the process without disfiguring the PDP.
Em 14/10/2021 16:17, Max Larson Henry escreveu:
> Hi Ricardo,
>> there are proposals "hanging" around for long time, even after low to no
>> support from community. some of them, are solutions for "no problem".
> - Are we talking about 2/ 3 proposals ? 1 or 2 authors ? If the
> response is yes, I still would not consider a proposal to address this
> In this case, I would think of a more consensual approach... The
> co-chair discuss directly with the authors and kindly explore/suggest
> withdrawal of the proposal.
> I must say that this has worked on multiple occasions in the past and
> the authors have always been open to it.
> But again, I understand your position might be different ;-).
>> in the way proposed, there would be a clear way to only move forward
>> those with attraction from the community in general (meaning, it would
>> solve a real/existent problem)
>> btw, I am in favor of the proposal
>> Best regards,
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> Desuscribirse/Descadastre-se/Unsubscribe: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/politicas
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> Desuscribirse/Descadastre-se/Unsubscribe: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/politicas
More information about the Politicas