> IMO, another problem is the consensus and Chairs' decision making > process are not well described in SIG guideline (and almost nothing in > PDP), so Chairs have too much flexibility when making decision.
as the saying goes, that's why they get the big bucks. of course they don't get any bucks. but there is a reason we put supposedly wise people in the chairs, not penguins. > I think 100% fixed rule is not appropriate for our community, but do > you have any idea to improve current description? i like the ietf draft to which i keep pointing [0] sometimes it is ok if there is no consensus. there really can be multiple reasonable views. in that case, we do not move forward. and that is ok. the packets are still moving. most of the time, if you ignore the three screaming idiots [1] (present company excluded, of course:-), consensus is pretty clear. and the chairs have to have the guts to tell the idiots "sorry, despite the volume of your voices, you lost," and the community moves ahead. remember, i am the one who proposed the final policy, which was stuffed by the bureaucratic st00pidity of a sig chair. there are more important things in life and even in the apnic community (as i think you brought up in KL) than endless micro-tweaking of policies. imiho, this is a red herring [2] which distracts from the real problems. randy -- [0] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/ [1] - and the arin ac and board members who think they will bring democracy and right thinking to the rest of the world [2] - The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
