Hi Jordi,

> The point is not only the PDP, as I believe we are still on time to correct 
> the policy proposal, which I think is broken and contradicting itself.
> 
> See my last email on the details, and a proposed text to resolve it, which 
> according to the PDP, we can still apply I think

We don't make any substantial changes in/after last call. Any "final changes" 
would be typo's. clearing up language etc. This is not the time to make changes 
to the core of the policy proposal.

And besides: you're not coming up with new arguments. These are the same 
arguments that you have voiced before. You have been heard in previous phases 
of the PDP, we seriously considered their merit, extended the review phase (and 
please stop complaining about not making any textual changes for the extended 
review phase, as I explained that is the discretion of the working group 
chairs) to see if there was support for your approach, and reached the 
conclusion that there wasn't. Your ideas have been heard and seriously 
considered, but despite that we determined that there is rough consensus to 
continue with the current version and leave the changes you want for a future 
policy proposal.

In the language of the RFC: we have addressed your objections, but not 
accommodated them.

> , without the need to wait for the concluding phase and then the appeal.

No need to wait. You can appeal the decision to declare consensus right now if 
you think our judgement was wrong. Feel free to do so. I'm confident we made 
the right decision, but we're human so if you think we made a mistake then 
let's ask the Working Group Chairs Collective what they decide.

As far as I'm concerned reviewing the policy proposal is done. We have rough 
consensus on the content and have moved to last call. If new objections come up 
with supporting arguments and they can't be addressed then we will declare lack 
of consensus at the end of last call. Raising the same objections as before is 
not going to block consensus in this phase: we already consider those 
objections addressed.

Cheers,
Sander


Reply via email to