Hi, On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:39:28PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > Problem Statement: > > RIPE PDP follows a consensus bottom-up approach. The consensus is judged by > WG chairs, and in case of discrepancies, there is an appeal process via the > WGCC. > > However, each WG has a different way to choose the WG chairs, despite that > this has a clear influence in the PDP and Appeal process and it doesn't make > sense that different WG's contributing to the PDP have different behavior.
Since the appeals process has been invoked only *once* in the lifetime of
the PDP, with many proposals succeeding, and many others being withdrawn,
it seems that this is not the most crucial point of the PDP.
> Further to that, the PDP doesn't have a direct relation with selection of the
> WG chairs, which again, doesn't look as a rational approach and generates
> inconsistencies.
The PDP is a tool to organize ourselves *regarding policy making*, not the
all-governing entity of the RIPE community.
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
