Hi Leo,

I have one question. When the timelines are described in section two, it says:

"These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed deadlines for the various stages. Individual proposals may choose to vary these, but the actual timescales must be documented."

As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else.

Good question. I think it is the WG chair's responsibility to set the timelines. There are many things that can make a different timescale appropriate. Sometimes only a very small change to the proposal has been made and a short phase just to confirm that the working group agrees is more appropriate. Sometimes a phase would end just before (or in the middle of) a RIPE meeting and a bit longer phase that includes the feedback from the working group session at the RIPE meeting is useful. I think the WG chair is the right person to balance all these things. Cheers, Sander

Hello, As far as I can read from the document, some proposals can enter the system directly through Discussion Phase, without any prior discussion in the WG. In those cases length of the Discussion Phase will be decided by the Chairs of the WG that the proposal was submitted to and accepted in, I assume. I think it will be good practice to make it clear who makes these decisions. Transparency through clear documentation helps processes. Filiz On 08 May 2014, at 17:20, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:

...

As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else.

Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen.

I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum.

Jim, I did not say that was a problem nor did I say all proposals should be discussed in the WG before. I was just responding to your comment in regards to Leo's point: --- Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen. --- "This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place. You also said: --- I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. ---- I think it will be useful to document who decides how long the duration of any period will be, due to transparency reasons. Apart from Discussion phases', I think it is implied that it is the job of the relevant WG Chair's task on the document alteady. I agree with Sander that they are the best ones to make this decision too. By the way, it will be an overkill to seek consensus on duration and times from the WG as a whole which you seem to be suggesting. But maybe you misunderstood Leo's point initially... I am confused now what exactly you are suggesting too. Filiz Sent from my iPhone

On 08 May 2014, at 18:06, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

...

On 8 May 2014, at 16:49, "Yilmaz, Filiz" <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:

As far as I can read from the document, some proposals can enter the system directly through Discussion Phase, without any prior discussion in the WG.

Huh? Are all proposals required to be discussed in the WG before they get created and then enter the Discussion Phase of the PDP where they ... eh... get discussed? :-)

Can you please explain why this is a problem Filiz and show what text led you to that interpretation?

Sorry Jim but in this case you sounded like more the Ayatollah of confusion :). I do not see any major wordsmithing suggested by Leo or me. I agree we all agree in fact. Let's move on but obviously Leo's question has remit and should not require a major PDP process to change the subject of a confusing sentence as we are at it! NCC can do that easily as Sander suggested. Just cosmetics. Filiz Sent from my iPhone

On 08 May 2014, at 19:44, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

...

On 8 May 2014, at 17:54, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:

"This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place.

Filiz, we are talking at cross-purposes. I was not remotely suggesting a heavyweight "WG consensus decision". Which I think you think I was. [You should know me far better than that. I am the Ayatollah of anti-process.] What I envisaged was nothing more than somebody saying "I think this proposal needs N weeks of discussion", the WG shrugging in approval and then that informal, lightweight decision getting written up as part of the proposal's documentation.

Anyways, this is all somewhat moot.

I ask that we stop rat-holing on this document and either accept it as-is or reject it. The focus of the discussion should be on the *changes* to RIPE500 in Sections 2.4 and 4. If we continue to pick nits and wordsmith by mailing list, we'll never get this completed.

Getting the WG Chairs Collective to make a consensus decision has proven to be harder than nailing jelly to a wall. It's also turned out to be unnecessary. The revised text gets rid of that and also simplifies the Appeals Procedure. If the revised text is adopted, it should make the PDP more effective and speedy than it is today.

If the PDP document needs further work, let's do that after RIPE500-bis is accepted. If that extra work has to be done now, we're going to be stuck with the current failing PDP for at least another year, possibly longer, and I hope nobody wants that.

Hi,

As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may as well choose the appropriate correction.

That is how I read it as well. "The WG chair may choose ..." ? Cheers, Sander

On 8 May 2014, at 17:15, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:

As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may as well choose the appropriate correction.

This text is unchanged from RIPE500 and nobody seemed to notice or care about that. Until now. Presumably that wording was OK when RIPE500 was developed and discussed at great length. Does it *really* need fixing? And fixing right now? Please remember that the object of the changes to RIPE500 are to fix the brokenness around the WGCC declaration of consensus: a tweak to Section 2.4 and streamlining of the Appeals Process in Section 4. Everything else -- the earlier stages of the PDP -- remains unchanged. It took forever to get that revised text put together. IMO now is not the time to re-open that. This will just create further delays and probably mean another year of persevering with the current PDP which is failing us. It would be a great pity if we delay adoption of the revised PDP because of a perceived need to change even more text that so far has not needed attention. I hope everyone can agree to first fix the immediate problem: unblocking the major procedural bottleneck in the sclerotic PDP. If further wordsmithing of this document is needed, can we *please* postpone that to RIPE500v3 and get RIPE500v2 out the door now? I think we should agree the revised document as-is or else reject it completely. If further changes are needed, I hope that discussion of that can be deferred for the next version. My rathole detector alarms are ringing. Loudly.

On 8 May 2014, at 18:32, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

This specific case is not a very complicated one, just a case of bad language mostly. I don't see why we should publish a document with a known language bug in it.

It's a bit more than a language bug Sander and there's no consensus (yet) on what text should replace it. That text has been in RIPE500 for years. Nobody complained. Or cared. It's not caused any problems. So leave it alone for now IMO. There's a broken PDP that needs fixing. I hope we can put out that fire without having a long discussion about what colour the fire engine should be or who gets to repaint it.

I wouldn't have a problem with a native English speaker fixing these little things when publishing the new version as a RIPE document. As long as it is just language fixes we shouldn't waste any time on them.

I am not sure it's a good idea to make "little fixes" like that on the fly. Yes, I know this sort of contradicts my healthy disregard for process and preference for pragmatic solutions. I fear if we re-open the revised document for further changes or little fixes, the discussions will terminate some time after the next Ice Age. YMMV.

Hi, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

At Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:

...

On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:

...

As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to

change

...

...

the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else.

Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen.

I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum.

As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may as well choose the appropriate correction.

I had expected to read something about the decision sitting with the WG or the WG chair. I wondered whether "proposals" was a typo for "proposer", hence the question. Regards, Leo