[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> There seems to be a myth that policy ideas cannot be discussed
> without a proposal on the table.  I have no idea where that idea
> originated, but it is demonstratibly false.  For instance, every
> face to face meeting has the "Open Policy Hour" specifically to
> discuss things not on the table.  PPML archives are filled with
> discussions that either never resulted in policy, or were discussed
> without a proposal for months or years before a proposal was put
> forward.
>
> What having a proposal does is put requirements on the discussion.
> Timelines.  Presentations at meetings.  These can be useful, but
> also in the early days of a proposal can be harmful; rather than
> letting the idea develop and turn into something good it is shoehorned
> into a timeline.

Leo,

Disruptive proposals serve an intrinsic purpose simply by existing and
demanding attention.

Six months ago you killed proposal 92 on the basis that you wanted
more time to consider small changes which might fix IPv6 policy's
severe dysfunction. Without pressure from an active proposal, what
have you accomplished with that time?


> As for this particular proposal, it appeared to me it was not ripe.
> Long proposals almost never pass, and not only is this one long but
> it touches on many different areas.  I believe in its current form
> it has no chance of passing, as the details need to be refined,
> simplified, and folks brought on board before there is a reason to
> have a formal proposal.

You've couched it better than Owen but you've basically said the same
thing: the community won't want this, so why bother bringing it to the
point where you ask them? The problem with that theory is two-fold:

1. Small changes are good but when small changes don't get the job
done it's time to consider big changes.

2. The response 103 got on the PPML was heavily weighted towards the
positive and comparable to other eventually-successful proposals in
that phase of the process. YOU COULD BE MISTAKEN. The only way to know
for sure is to take it to the meeting and ask.

In the end you could be right. It could well go down in flames during
the consensus call at the meeting. But even that serves a valuable
purpose.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004