Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE

Hi,

Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> At Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> > 
> > On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to
change
> > > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else.
> > 
> > Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a
> > consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be
> > responsible for making that happen.
> > 
> > I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE
> > needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum.
> 
>   As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase,
 >  "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may
 >  as well choose the appropriate correction.

I had expected to read something about the decision sitting with the WG or
the WG chair. I wondered whether "proposals" was a typo for "proposer",
hence the question.

Regards,

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20140508/fb990ba0/attachment.p7s>