[ncc-services-wg] 2023-03 status problem

On 2023 May 15 (Mon) at 12:10:22 +0200 (+0200), Sander Steffann wrote:
:Hello working group,
:
:As the authors were in a bit of a difficult position. The chairs won't move this policy proposal forward as there was no feedback during the discussion phase.
:
:We were under the impression that the chairs had extended the deadline of the phase as we did talk about that, but it didn’t actually happen. When I sent my reminder the discussion phase was therefore already over, so all the support and feedback we got then Doesn’t Count™. They have indicated that they will only reopen the discussion phase if they know that there actually will be engagement for this to be meaningful.
:
:So, can the people who are interested in this proposal please pinky swear that they will contribute if it does get another discussion phase? ;)  You may have to repeat your feedback in the proper phase of the PDP to be counted. This approach is less pragmatic than I would have chose when I was a chair, but this is not my working group :) And the chairs are right that the reason for this being a policy proposal is that the NCC (legal) team wants formal community support, so I can see why they are following the process to the letter. So let’s do this formally right.
:
:PS: Denis, thank you for your contribution! We’re going to ask the RIPE NCC to comment on the interaction between the policies, and whether a separate policy like this one (with maybe a cleanup of the text in Address Policy) is preferred to integrating this in the transfer policy or not. Considering that the RIPE NCC gave us a hard deadline to get this policy in place, I’m hesitant to restart the whole process this late.
:
:Cheers!
:Sander

What a waste of time.

The charis need to sort this out and stop fucking up a clearly desired
and clearly necessary thing.  If they can't, or aren't willing to, then
they should step down.


-- 
Fuch's Warning:
	If you actually look like your passport photo, you aren't well
enough to travel.