This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rob Evans
Rob.Evans at jisc.ac.uk
Fri Oct 4 11:19:54 CEST 2019
Hi, > What do other people think? I’m not really surprised. Other non-policy documents have gone through the largely the same procedure. I suppose a heads-up would have been useful, but this could just be a mismatch of expectations — those in the NCC expect us to be using the PDP, we thought this was a parallel activity. When the only hammer you have is the PDP, every document looks like a policy. :-) I suspect getting consensus on v3 and getting the IA on that is the most likely way forward, in my limited understanding anyway. Cheers, Rob
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]