Hello Fernando, I didn't ignore you, sorry if that's how you felt, please accept my apologies. Christopher did gave you the correct answer, so I figured that saying again the same thing would be useless, my bad ! Gaging consensus is not an easy task, we start with the mailing list, most of the time it's pretty fast as there is close to no comments (...) sometimes you get a long thread with many peoples (but this is rare). From there, most of the time, we have no clue if the prop will pass or not, everything will be done at the OPM. And this is where the fun starts. We take into consideration the comments and the questions during the presentation, dnd then we call for consensus The confer tool is an element used because some community members will not show their approval (or rejection) publicly, most of the time it confirms what's in the room. The call for consensus (described in the PDP) is then used to gage the room temperature after the OPM discussions, it's not something you can really describe, it's a feeling, and even when you're in the room (and not on the stage) it's not easy to get. Each call is unique, and sometimes it gets very tricky (prop-154 was one of them, ask Aftab about it ^_^), only with experience and time you can do a good job! It's one of the reason why in the last decade (or more) all the Chairs were co-Chairs before. The part that lead to the opposition from the JPOPF was addressed in v2, and changed to a neutral opinion.
If you were to come to Wellington, I would gladly talk with you about consensus ! Ven 03 mai 2024, à 03:16, Fernando Frediani a écrit : > Hello Bertrand > > It seems that you completely ignored this discussion recently and didn't > answer questions that were put specifically to you. > On 06th March it was asked what was taken into consideration in order > give consensus on this proposal and you never replied. It was put and > reviewed all the amount of objections that has been opened, technical > concerns and that the justifications given by the author were not enough > to justify the policy. There was also a message contrary to the proposal > by the Japanese group and *none* in favor of it, zero. > > Only the author replied to this thread defending his proposal but on the > subsequent messages on 07th March and on 11th March it was said the > question was direct to you but you simply ignored it as if you didn't > have to answer or explain anything. > You simply thanked the author as if he could answer by yourself. All you > mentioned was asking to put things that could improve the proposal, but > didn't specifically answered the main point about explaining what was > taken into consideration to give consensus to a proposal that has > several objections with proper justification and zero support from any > community member. > > So either you didn't pay attention there was a question for you to > explain publicly or you didn't care to answer. > Afterwards you just confirmed the proposal had reached consensus without > explaining anything further from the recent discussion. > > As the duty to give or not consensus to a policy lies exclusively on the > chairs it is their duty to explain their reasoning whenever needed and > in this case was a case that clearly there was controversy, but at the > end seems that you with the Co-Chairs treated it as something usual that > didn't even has the need to explain to community the reasoning behind > this consensus. It is something concerning in my view and I want to > reiterate the need to explain this consensus because as this one that > can be any other proposals that may pass despite concerns and problems. > > Fernando > > On 12/04/2024 02:34, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The four-week final comment period for this proposal has ended. >> >> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and >> links to previous versions are available at: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-156/ >> >> During the final comment period there was one objection raised on the >> consensus process. It was addressed by the Chair and a community member. >> As consensus for this proposal has been maintained, We formally >> request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal. >> >> Once again, thank you for your participation in the APNIC policy >> development process. >> >> Regards, >> >> Bertrand, Shaila and Anupam >> Policy SIG Chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Regards, -- Bertrand Cherrier _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
