[sig-policy] 答复: 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
Both Ching-heng and I sent email on our internal list specifically
stated that we don't think consensus has been reached.
But you ignored our comments and announced a consensus.
I prefer more open communication instead of imposing opinion upon others
too.
Does people express serious concerns consistently cannot be considered
'objection'?
The mailing-list is not a place for voting so people usually may not
specifically say 'Objection ', but we can understand
clearly from their messages.
The 8 weeks comment period is for those who didn't have chance
to express their opinion in the OPM meeting or was confused at
the OPM meeting to have second chance to make their idea
expressed clearly, also more communication helps people to clarify their
point
and helps people understand each other better.
Those people expressed and defended their concerns consistently
in each of their posts about the proposal, I would consider they
object to the proposal.
Those people like Andy and Seiichi, they only expressed some concern,
they also expressed some supports in other posts, I wouldn't
consider them as 'object to' the proposal .
Since there are at least 5 people expressed serious concerns, I consider
there are
'substantial objections' to prop-050, which cannot be consider a consensus.
I certainly can see that there's significant community interest in the
concept of transfers, and that with careful discussion, there might a
significant chance of community to reach consensus in the future.
Let's keep up our good work.
Best regards
Jian
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg dot com]
发送时间: 2009年5月20日 23:02
收件人: Zhang Jian
抄送: Ching-Heng; sig-policy
主题: Re: [sig-policy] 答复: prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
hi juan,
> As we discussed before in sig-chairs mailing list, Ching-heng and me as
> co-chairs of policy sig, neither of us think consensus has been reached on
> prop-050.
well, firstly, the approval message sat on our internal list for over a
day and you said nothing. so possibly a bit more could be done on our
communication. i am an ops hacker and researcher, and am more used to
open and direct communication than nir and admin infrastructure
politicans may be.
secondly, according to the policy development process, consensus was
reached in manila. this mailing list period was to see if there were
"substantial objections." please review the policy development process.
> I have made a rough count. Totally 18 people made comments on this
proposal
> in mailing list, total 81 posts have been posted, there are 9 people have
> serious concerns about this proposal, therefore I don't think consensus is
> reached.
people making comments is a positive thing. it is called community
participation in the process. we do our best to encourage and support
it.
i for one hope that the discussion on the list will produce proposals
and consensus to augment -50, but we failed to have consensus on them in
manila. and failed consensus on ammendments to a proposal does not
constitute either failed consensus on the proposal itself, nor does it
constitute substantial objection to the proposal.
and once again, this is not a voting process.
you still confuse consensus with voting, concern with objection, etc.
these things do not transit cultural boundaries well, and unfortunately,
neither you nor ching-heng had the opportunity to be at the sig chairs'
meetings where these aspects of process have been repeatedly discussed.
as kawamura-san, andy, ... pointed out, they are concerned but not
objecting. i share their concerns, but my proposal did not gain
consensus in manila, and i am not a 'sore loser' who makes a fuss about
process. we move ahead. perhaps others will succeed where i did not.
we should support attempts at forward progress, not indulge in process
arguments because we did not succeed.
let us perform our jobs and move forward by helping those who are trying
to build some safeguards on top of the substrate of prop-50.
i appreciate your concerns, but the pdp is being followed, the consensus
for the proposal was reached in manila. the list discussion has been
one of the healthiest i have seen for a proposal, which does not imply
substantial objection. the consensus is not overturned.
regards,
randy