[arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Cj Aronson]

On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 4:52 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> > I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the
> > changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very
> > difficult for the AC because we often could not get the author to
> participate
> > in the process and so policies that the community wanted and needed
> > would languish.  It was very frustrating and the process changed because
> of it.
>
> Hi Cathy,
>

Hi Bill!


>
> Of this I have no doubt. I would have supported more modest changes to
> the IRPEP like allowing the AC to determine a proposal abandoned by
> its author, allowing an author to cede a proposal to the AC for
> further development and allowing the AC to advance a comparable
> proposal of their own if after a meeting the original failed to gather
> consensus. There was room for improvement in the IRPEP. The board
> ditched it for the PDP instead.
>

>
> > I do not think there is a single AC member who isn't willing to
> > work with the author and at least when I was on the AC that
> > was always our priority and we worked hard to do that.
>
> How many proposals would you say survive the process without the AC
> changing something about the text? Keeping what they understand to be
> the meaning of the proposal,of course, but changing the text? Is the
> number larger than zero?
>

OMG in the olden days SO many proposals languished because the policy was
not the priority of the author.  We would get proposals and we would try to
work with authors and literally get no response for months if at all.   In
the modern process proposals pretty much always get changed for editorial
stuff.  They also get changed based on community feedback so we can gain
consensus.  When I worked on the "cable policy" as it was known at the time
(1996/97 or so) there wasn't any real policy process and some of us
negotiated with Jon Postel and Kim Hubbard to make a policy.  What exists
now as a process is a lot better than that.  :-)

My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve?  I get
that you don't seem to like the PDP or the process, but do you have
examples of authors who are unhappy because their proposal ended up
different from what they originally proposed?  John can tell us the
numbers, but very very rarely has the petition process been used by an
author.

Thanks! I hope you're doing great!
-----Cathy


> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240812/33665a3c/attachment.htm>