Hi, > Can you point to the section of the PDP which allows chairs to make such > decision?
I'd say that "3.6 Varying the Process" would apply here, although that is written in a way that the only variation seems to be to expedite the process. > We have to stick to the PDP which has been declared by some as not broken. > If you think like us, that the PDP needs improvement, please say so and > contribute to the discussions around PDP-bis. I think there are a few things that should be improved: 1) The function description of the chairs is now: "The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions". I think the chairs have more responsibility and a more important role than that. To reflect that, I think section 3.6 needs to be rewritten to allow the chairs more freedom in ensuring the functioning of the working group. In the current case there has been one clear violation of the PDP already. Section 3.4.1 clearly states "The author(s) shall make the necessary changes to the draft policy according to the feedback received.". The versions of the draft policy have clearly not addressed all the issues that have been raised before their publication. The chairs should not allow a new version to be submitted until the authors have explicitly addressed all the open issues and fulfilled that requirement of the PDP. If that is not possible, then the policy will expire after one year of the publication of the latest version. So in summary: the current PDP doesn't seem to allow for the chairs to make such a decision, but it does allow (require?) them to make sure the authors comply with the PDP. That way a runaway proposal can still be stopped, although it will take a year. Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
