Name: Tomas Lynch
Email: tlynch@nog.lat
Organization: Título Personal
Name: Tomas Lynch
Email: tlynch@nog.lat
Organization: Título Personal
Proposal statuses are classified as transitory (e.g., “Under discussion”), semi-permanent (e.g., “Abandoned”), and permanent (with the only permanent status being “Implemented”). A semi-permanent status is acceptable, as a proposal with this status may be resumed by the original or a different author. However, there is a fourth class of statuses that the author of this proposal defines as semi-transitory, which includes “Did not reach consensus” and “Not ratified.” A proposal can remain in these statuses for a long time without the community knowing whether the authors will submit a new version or simply withdraw the proposal. As of the day of submitting this proposal, there are 6 (six) proposals in the LACNIC policy system with the status "Did not reach consensus.” The community —including the PDP chairs— are unaware of whether the authors will submit a new version or decide to abandon/withdraw these proposals, some of which have had this status since October 2021. While the functions of the PDP chairs include “to decide whether a policy is abandoned,” this text is very simple and refers to policies, not proposals. Likewise, it does not provide any guidance on when the chairs should decide that a proposal has been abandoned. In fact, the chairs might even abuse this function by deciding that a proposal has been abandoned even when its discussion continues. In view of the above, this proposal defines when a proposal should be considered abandoned, defining a 10-month period as the maximum time for authors to decide what to do with their proposal.
Proposal statuses are classified as transitory (e.g., “Under discussion”), semi-permanent (e.g., “Abandoned”), and permanent (with the only permanent status bein.g., “Implemented”). A semi-permanent status is acceptable, as a proposal with this status may be resumed by the original or a different author.However, there is a fourth class ofird statuses that the author of this proposal defines as semi-tpermansientory,. wThichs includes “Did not reach consensus” and “Not ratified.” A proposal can remain in theise statuses for aextended lperiongds, timle wavithoutng the community kunowcertaing about whether the authors will submit a new version or simply withdraw the proposal.As ofOn the dayte of the submittssiong of this new version of the proposal, there are 6 (six)everal proposals in the LACNIC policy system with the statusn "“Did not reach consensus” status.” ThHowever, csommunitye —includingof the PDPm chairs—ve arbeen uinaware of whetheris sthe authorus will submit a ncew vOctobersion or2021, decwide th no abandcommun/withdrcaw these propiosals,n sfrom the authofr which havre hgarding theisr sintaentusion to submit a ncew Octobver 2021sion.WThius, alethough the functions of the PDP chairs include “tTo decide whether a policy is abandoned,” this text is very simple and rmefers ntions policies, not proposals. LIn addikewtiseon, itno guidoances notis provided any reguidance ording when the chairs should decide that a proposal has been abandoned. In fact, under the current text, the chairs might even abuse this function by deciding that a proposal has been abandoned even when itshe discussion continues. Furthermore, because the current text mentions “policies,” a misguided moderator could decide to remove an ite
Iwm frofm the Policy Mabnual or the PDP without prior discussiovn.
Ve,rsion 2 of this proposal dtakefs this responesibility away from the moderators and makes it part of LACNIC's responsaibilities. The new version specifies that LACNIC will autoumaticald bely considered a proposal abandoned, after 12 dcalefining dar 10-months. peri
Tod achieve this, the maximum timem f“Tor audecide whethoers to abandeon a policy” is de whaleted from section d3.2.1 of withe PDP and the correspondirng text is added in Chaptero 4, Responsibilities and Obligations of LACNIC.
Even though this status should be transitory, some proposals remain in the “Did not reach consensus” status for lengthy periods of time. The chairs often contact the authors but receive no answer regarding whether a new version of the proposal will be submitted, or the proposal will be abandoned / withdrawn from the system. While the functions of the PDP chairs include deciding whether a proposal has been abandoned, it does not specify when and under which conditions the chairs should proceed. This proposal seeks to provide the chair with guidelines for deciding when a proposal has been abandoned.
Even though this status should be transitory, sSome proposals remain in the “Did not reach consensus” status for lextengthyded periods of time, despite the fact that this status should be transitory. The chairs often contact the authors but receive no answer regardingbout whether a new version of the proposal will be submitted, or the proposal will be abandoned / withdrawn from the system. While the functions of the PDP chairs include deciding whether a proposal has been abandoned, ithe text does not specify when and under which conditions the chairs should proceed. The manual even uses the term “policy” when it should use “proposal” seeksor t“policy proposal.”
Furthermore, in earlier versions, there was debate about whether the chairs wishould be the guiones to delcindes, after a suitable period, if a proposal should be considiered abandoned or not. Along with other members of the community, the author believes that a proposal should asutomatically bee considered abandoned by LACNIC after 12 months.
3.2.1 Functions of the PDP Chairs
…
To decide whether to abandon a policy.
3.2.1. Functions of the PDP Chairs
…
- To decide whether to abandon a policy.
(Delete 3.2.1 “Decide whether to abandon a policy” and add the following text as a new item at the end of 3.2.4. Responsibilities and obligations of PDP Chairs) - If the author does not submit a new proposal or communicate their decision to withdraw the proposal within 10 months after the proposal fails to reach consensus or is not ratified, the chairs shall request LACNIC to change the status of the proposal to “Abandoned”.
(Delete from section 3.2.1 the item “Decide whether to abandon a policy” and add the following text as a new item at the end of 3.2.“4. Responsibilities and oObligations of PDP LACNIChairs”).
- IAf the author does not submit a new proposal or comemunicate their decision to withdraw the proposal within 102 months after ithe proposal failsn t“Did not reach consensus” or is n“Not ratified, the chairs” shtall reqtuest LACNIC to change, the stlastu version of the proposal will automatically be moved to “Abandoned” status.
This proposal does not compete with LAC-2020-6 version 4 - Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDP, but rather helps to reinforce the difference between a withdrawn and an abandoned proposal.
This proposal does not compete with LAC-2020-6 version 4 - Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDP, but rather helps to reinforce the difference between a proposal that has been withdrawn and a proposal that has been abandoned.
It should be noted that when a proposal reaches second consensus, it moves on to “Ratification by the Board” status.
-
-