[arin-discuss] process and description of meetings

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Lee Howard wrote:

> The Draft Policy is the text that goes to the public policy meetings.  
> Alternating with other informative presentations, every
> Draft is presented to the people present (including remote participants),
> beginning with a history of the proposal, including a summary of the 
> debate so far.  For instance, for proposal 2009-4 presented in San
> Antonio, we learned that 18 people had made 58 posts, of whom 
> 3 were in favor, and 4 were against it (the rest apparently weren't
> clear about their positions).  

But, Lee, this is EXACTLY how it works In Real Life, ie: in real
government.

Take the US Congress for example.  At most congressional sessions,
half the representatives and senators aren't present during the debates,
aren't contributing, aren't even paying much attention.  Why?  Because
whatever is up for debate isn't of interest to them.

PPML has a number of topics that come up and not every one of them is
of general interest.

For example an org may not have native IPv6 connectivity and may have
plenty of IPv4 and therefore may take the pragmatic approach that they
are just going to ignore IPv6 for a few more years and let others figure
the problems out.

By contrast an org may have both IPv6/IPv4 and plenty of IPv4 and may
decide that the issues of IPv4-sales, or IPv4-runout are entirely
uninteresting.

It is not necessary for every member of PPML to weigh in on every issue
that is discussed here.  Sure they can if they want, but if members feel
an issue doesn't apply to them - why is it necessary for them to post?

Your making, I think, a rather insulting assumption that the people who
don't post about a topic are failing to post because they are unclear,
or confused, or have trouble following it.

Sure, some people are probably in that camp.  I would submit if they 
spent more time following the list and researching some of the posts
they don't understand that they would come up to speed pretty quickly.
Of course, some people out there refuse to spend anything more than the
absolute minimum of time on anything that someone isn't handing them
cash to spend time on - I pity these people as that attitude destroys
the richness of life, but that's their choice, (and I'm sure they are
a lot of the complainers since they want stuff spoon fed) - but I feel
that at least as many people simply don't weigh in on issues that they
feel don't affect them.

We would get worse policy if a LOT of uninformed people were putting
in their opinions, than if FEWER INFORMED people were putting in their
opinions.  If the latter is happening now, we are doing pretty good.

And, a year from now some of those in the "I'm clueless" camp will
have moved into the "I'm clueful" camp, and some in the "I'm clueful"
camp will have moved into the "I'm clueless" camp.  That's just how
life works.

After all, the US Constitutional Convention back in 1787 had SEVENTY
appointed delegates, of which only 55 attended but only 42 of them 
actually stayed to complete the US Constitution, and only 39 of those 
actually signed it.  In other words, only 55% of the people selected
to write the US Constitution actually ended up signing it - and only
3 people who DIDN'T sign the US Constitution, actually went on record
declining to sing it (Gov. Randolph & G. Mason of VA and E. Gerry of MA)

And that's the US Constitution!!!!!!!!

Ted