Was : RE: 2012-09 - now : PDP 'I Agree discussion'
Hi Jan,
It's an oddity of the PDP. I'm not sure if it serves a useful purpose because at the times when there are piles of proposals flying around (e.g. now), people end up getting jaded by the requirement for constant acks and me-toos.
Agree... is this painful enough that we need to change it?
Looking at how the process currently goes, I don't think that changing this would make everyone his/her live so much easier. Personally I think doing it the way that we currently do it, might look a bit redundant, but it does provide clear consensus during all phases of the PDP. Typically we seem to be pretty easy to get on top of policies again if it is needed .. (just look at the simple email from one of the chairs to restate support in the current phase / or state of the proposal. ) How would you propose to change it if it would be changed ? Erik Bais
On 22 Feb 2013, at 10:53, Erik Bais wrote:
Looking at how the process currently goes, I don't think that changing this would make everyone his/her live so much easier. Personally I think doing it the way that we currently do it, might look a bit redundant, but it does provide clear consensus during all phases of the PDP.
Absolutely.
Typically we seem to be pretty easy to get on top of policies again if it is needed .. (just look at the simple email from one of the chairs to restate support in the current phase / or state of the proposal. )
How would you propose to change it if it would be changed ?
[Déjà-vu alert: I did send something like this to the WG Chairs list already] (Co-) Chair(s) of the WG where the policy is being developed could be allowed to take the initiative of declaring on the list that there were sufficient grounds (for example: overwhelming support in Discussion Phase and no impact) for considering earlier support as carrying over into the Review Phase, and that because of this silence would exceptionally be taken as consent. That would seem to give an opportunity to save effort and irritation. Would it still be safe and transparent enough? /Niall
On 2/22/13 12:45 PM, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
(Co-) Chair(s) of the WG where the policy is being developed could be allowed to take the initiative of declaring on the list that there were sufficient grounds (for example: overwhelming support in Discussion Phase and no impact) for considering earlier support as carrying over into the Review Phase, and that because of this silence would exceptionally be taken as consent.
That would seem to give an opportunity to save effort and irritation.
Niall, Eric, @WG... This seems like a good idea to me. Chairs are there to determine a consensus and something like this would be a great addition to the variety of ways in which they can actually do their job :) Cheers, Jan
On Feb 22, 2013 2:09 PM, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
(Co-) Chair(s) of the WG where the policy is being developed
could be
allowed to take the initiative of declaring on the list that
there were
sufficient grounds (for example: overwhelming support in
Discussion Phase
and no impact) for considering earlier support as carrying over
into the
Review Phase, and that because of this silence would
exceptionally be
taken as consent.
I think the current system is designed to make sure such interpretation is not needed, reducing the chance for errors and misunderstandings. As Gert pointed out repeatedly, we are dealing with two outliers here anyway, significantly changing the process just for those seems unwise. Why not ask all chairs to state explicitly in all their announcements that new ayes and nays are needed for that specific phase? Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
participants (4)
-
Erik Bais -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Niall O'Reilly -
Richard Hartmann