Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG meeting yesterday
I think the effort is much more difficult for the chairs actually, as I just
mention in a previous email, the chairs have a very difficult task to
measure in an objective way if consensus has been reached or not, and being
objective is a MUST for a process to be fair.
I agree that debate is positive, but if personal attacks are not part of it.
I'm not worried personally about being attacked, I'm more worried on the
effect towards others and the process itself.
We need to debate the merits of the proposals, not try to manipulate the
group debating the proponent. I think is obvious that if the proposals have
been accepted by the chairs, there is any point it debating any more about
that, right ? Especially in the meeting, but also in the mailing list, is a
wrong behavior and makes the people scared about participating in the
process and being offended by others. I'm assuming that the chairs can
actually object to a proposal submission if it makes no sense, is against
the process, etc., right ?
Regarding proposal 042, and somehow debating about the consensus reaching
process (taking this as an example, not actually trying to defend it or not
right now). I've seen other proposals reaching consensus with a similar
proportion of people in favor/against, which confirms my view about the
subjectivity of the *process*. Moreover, I think if we have this
subjectivity, then we should consider other points. For example, I believe
that the people that spoken against the proposal and voted against it, was
not "natural" from the APNIC region. This is only my view, but I think it
should be considered if we want a "subjective" process. I think it is more
important the view of the people from the region, especially if they are in
clear "majority".
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Kenny Huang <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
> Responder a: <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
> Fecha: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:41:46 +0800
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>, <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Asunto: RE: [sig-policy] Policy SIG meeting yesterday
>
> Dear Jordi,
>
> Sorry for not reponding you sooner. First of all, I appreciate your
> contributions in many of the
> policy sig meeting (with my x sig-chair hat). I can see there were
> tremendous efforts to put your
> thought into these proposals.
>
> Debate is part of the tradition of policy sig. I guess that debates in Asia
> Pacific region is
> probably milder than debates in other regions. However, I am fully
> perceived your concerns,
> there is room to improve the process. The administration of policy sig has
> been changed. I believe
> it will deliver much better outcome in the future sig meetings.
>
> Regarding proposal042, it was 13 in favor, 4 objections, 85 on the floor. I
> think that is fair
> consideration to have more discussion in ML. Although it wasn't declared as
> a consensus, but
> it is definitely far from uniformity. We can explore more sophisticated
> methodology to scope
> consensus. The decision remains open and is owned by sig members.
>
>
> Thanks and Best Regards
>
>
> Kenny Huang
> huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:04 PM
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Policy SIG meeting yesterday
>
> Hi all,
>
> Regarding the Policy SIG yesterday and more specifically proposal 042, after
> getting some more feedback from some other folks and also sleeping on it,
> I've to raise some concerns.
>
> I know measuring consensus is not easy, but clearly consensus is not
> unanimity and there was a clear superior number of people in favor than
> opposing the proposal.
>
> Furthermore, there were no negative comments in the mail exploder since it
> was presented.
>
> So, with all the respect, I think the achievement of consensus for this
> policy should be reconsidered. Otherwise, we could also think that the
> consensus in previous meetings, for other policy proposals (not naming any
> in particular), has also never reached, as always there were comments and
> votes against, and the consensus was declared when a similar proportion of
> people was in favor vs. against.
>
> Moreover, in my opinion, yesterday the personal and unpleasant attacks that
> a single participant launched against me (not the proposals) created a clear
> situation of breach of the process and some folks may have been predisposed
> against the proponent, and thus influenced some which may have decided not
> to vote at all, or even voting against the proposals as a way to vote
> "against" the proponent, which is not the intent of the process.
>
> I expect that this kind of situation is not allowed in future meetings,
> hopefully. I think I was very kind in front of the attacks received, and
> under other situations, such as using my own native language instead of
> English, could have taken a very different reaction and become even more
> rude that the attacker itself, which I not did also in order to respect the
> rest of participants and try to play a fair game despite the situation.
>
> It is clear that, all kind of respectful critics to discuss any proposal
> merits are part of the process, are needed and welcome, and I fully support
> them. However unpleasant comments as we had yesterday which even reached to
> the point of not allowing the presenter to continue defending the proposal.
>
> This has also a very negative impact towards the process and the people
> participating, which under this kind of pressure could consider that is not
> worth to invest the time in submitting a proposal and defending it, as they
> can be "freely" attacked, specially in regions where because cultural
> reasons, difficulties with the language, or any other reasons, participants
> are typically shy and not precisely prone to speak up. I think it is a clear
> manipulation of the process.
>
> I also want to clarify the reason I had 4 proposals, as this was part of the
> attack. Before the previous meeting I submitted a single proposal, and it
> seems that it was considered complex to understand and to decide about it,
> so following staff recommendations, I decided to split it in several, in
> order to help the people to read them one by one and consider each part as a
> simpler piece.
>
> Also, part of the attack was about the waste of time, and in fact I think we
> used about 60% of the time that was originally allocated for this. It was
> not my intend to ask anyone to waste their time, but more on the other way,
> facilitate all to understand the proposal and take a position about it, and
> this is part of the process.
>
> I believe that the most important think in this process is not to discourage
> people, and what happened yesterday is clearly doing so. The process is not
> set for or to allow attack people presenting, otherwise we are measuring the
> presenter merits, not the proposal ones.
>
> And last, but not least, in my humble opinion, delaying a proposal that in
> my opinion reached consensus can be actually considered as a real "denial of
> service" attack to the process and it means that all spend our time in
> discussing it again when it is not really needed and acting unfairly among
> different proposals.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.