> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Alan Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> How about this: >>>>> >>>>> 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: >>>>> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 >>>>> shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public >>>>> policy meeting. >>>>> (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the >>>>> community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be >>>>> put in force as directed by the Board. >>>>> >>>>> Would that work? >>>> >>>> Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG >>>> chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a >>>> Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The >>>> concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) >>>> consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new >>>> version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on >>>> something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. >>> >> >> I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording >> is flawed. >> >> How about: >> >> Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through >> the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a >> proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to >> remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the >> board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP >> or by the board under this process. >> >> In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time >> instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. >> >> ---- >> >> Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the >> existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP? > > Yes, I think that works, but the notice of meeting needs to be sent tomorrow, > with final text for all proposed changes to the bylaws, and I am not > comfortable making such a change without time for comments from others. It > can always be proposed in the future.
i am still convinced this should be a matter of PDP, and we should discuss this in that regard. I will like to see the topic in the agenda for next PDPWG meeting. —Alain > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
