hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:33:18PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > 2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem > statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this > must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the > consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are > adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to > improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which > can be a very bad thing.
"there is a need to improve" is a very clear problem statement :-)
A problem *statement* does not have to be "LIRs are starving!", but it
defines whatever it is that is to be addressed by a policy proposal.
For policy proposals to progress in a meaningful way, there needs to be
some sort of common understanding on the "problem statement" aka "what is
it that we are going to improve here, and why?" *before* a full-blown
new policy text falls from the sky.
If this is missing, usually people do not react in the most open and
welcoming way to "hey, I have a new wall of text here!" ambush proposals.
(A problem statement does not have to be "we're going to improve the
world" class - it can be just "I, speaking for my LIR, have seen problems
with <this>, and I think it can be improved by doing <that>" - which is
a very clear statement on *why* things are proposed. Then the community
can start discussing the *how* - but "why?" needs to come first)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
