[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:08:38PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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:
>
> You are putting words into my mouth.  The community may well want
> this in the future, I have no reason to believe they will or they
> won't.

Leo,

You're right. I owe you a more thoughtful response:

> 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.
>
> 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.

It's obvious to me and I think it's becoming obvious to you and to
others that the IPv6 policy requires a major overhaul. If we were
going to get to something that worked rationally with small,
incremental adjustments to the existing policy, we'd have achieved it
already. For better or for worse, this means writing a long proposal.
And rewriting it until we have one that passes.

One important intermediate step is getting folks used to the idea of a
major rewrite and used the range of ideas for what to replace existing
IPv6 policy with. We've made considerable headway for the folks who
camp on PPML but not all folks who attend meetings do so. If we want
all the folks who participate in the policy process to gain exposure
the the ideas then we have to bring some proposals forward through the
process. And if necessary, allow them to be shot down at the meeting,
preferably with a selection of good comments from the community there
as to what must change in the proposal.

The ideas won't get appropriate exposure from an open policy hour.
Open policy hour is a place where you float vague ideas and get snap
feedback. We're well past vague ideas. A proposal on the table demands
attention and critical evaluation, and that's what's needed.

If for no other reason, I think the AC should have moved 103 forward.


As for ripeness, what do you have in mind? Do you spy technical flaws
in how the proposal could be reasonably expected to function when the
rubber meets the road? I'll welcome your thoughts.

But Leo, ripeness doesn't mean that a proposal isn't ready to be
accepted, it means that a proposal isn't fully formed. If 103 has
covered it's corner cases and achieved language that forms actionable
policy then let the community do it's job of evaluating the proposal.
The AC doesn't have to shield the community from making decisions.
It's okay to let the wider community shoot a proposal down. It gets
the ideas out there and makes the next attempt at a proposal that much
stronger.

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