[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> Yes, but the current policy (2009-8) activated today with IANA exhaustion,
> it would have taken emergency action to prevent that. Or are you suggestion
> we should go down to three months, back to twelve months, and then back down
> to three months again? Honestly, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
That might have been a good reason for bouncing it. But "there isn't
time" is disingenuous. There's always time.
It sets me off when a member of the AC (or the AC as a whole)
announces that there isn't time for something. Not enough time to get
this through the process. Too many proposals, not enough time to work
on this one. Call it a pet peeve.
Many of you are past your first terms. If you couldn't figure out how
to make time, you shouldn't have run for reelection. You know: lead,
follow or ::get out of the way::. Those of you past your first terms
did run for reelection. So now it's just a wussy excuse.
This is part of another irritant for me as well: I find the brusque
way the AC disposes of proposals it decides to abandon to be
disrespectful to their authors. A proposal author has spent hours
behind the scenes carefully crafting language, researching process and
writing justification. When you make the decision instead of leaving
it to consensus, simple courtesy demands at least a paragraph from
each of you explaining why the proposal wasn't good enough.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004