[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Apr 22 02:02:58 UTC 2015
Colleagues:
I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus
building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your
convenience.
Best-
Joe
On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Joe,
> I fully agree with your way forward.
> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and
> deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not
> and replace it by your text to which I fully agree
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg
> <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>:
>
> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust ..
>
> Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense
> week of meetings ..
>
> I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be
> able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier ..
>
> Appreciate being excused ..
>
> Kind regards
>
> --Manal
>
> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
> Arasteh
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM
> *To:* Alissa Cooper
> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments
> handling
>
> Alissa
>
> Thank you for the message
>
> Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give
> the choice ti OCs to reply or not
>
> Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice
> should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react.
> i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would
> not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send
> the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and
> copy the reply to ICG
>
> This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight
> that process as indicated in our charter.
>
> We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter.
>
> Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention.
>
> I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find
> a solution.
>
> Regards
>
> Ksvouss
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in
> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>
> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document
> directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that
> would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what
> changes you all have agreed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Alissa,
>
> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that
> we worked for several months ago in which there was no
> mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced
> in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft
> consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that
> consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such
> document which established the basis of our works and
> completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored
>
> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and
> agreement.
>
> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and
> you need to take that into account
>
> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with
> what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those
> agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was
> totally disagreed from the very beginning
>
> We need to be practical and comply with our charter.
>
> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it
> requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be
> sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided
> by ICG that action should be done.
>
> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs .
>
> Comments received should not left as an optional process by
> OCs they must be treated properly.
>
> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to
> answer the questions
>
> Then what is the role of the ICG?
>
> Community expects a proper action from ICG,
>
> The issue is not so difficult
>
> Pls do not make a mass of that.
>
> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits
>
> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to
> converge and not to diverge
>
> This is an important matter left from Singapore
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff
> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:
>
> Kavouss:
>
> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to
> ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must
> come to us.
>
> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and
> transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC
> propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals
> or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the
> spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an
> OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they
> need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize
> community consensus. We need maximum transparency and
> consensus across all of our efforts...
>
> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to
> forward questions that should have better been addressed to
> the OC...
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com
> <http://www.nitrodesk.com/>)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM
> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>]
> CC: paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se> [paf at frobbit.se
> <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>]; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> [internal-cg at ianacg.org
> <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments
> handling
>
> Dear Joseph
> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or
> not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments.
> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff
> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >
> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment.
> >
> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown
> (www.nitrodesk.com <http://www.nitrodesk.com/>)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>]
> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM
> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>]
> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> [internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community
> comments handling
> >
> >
> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff
> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Choices:
> >>
> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our
> own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related
> question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability
> to do at all times.
> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our
> process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to
> properly answer the question. As such we could forward the
> question to the correct community, on the chance that the
> asker of the question may not have also addressed the community.
> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the
> questions we receive will be available online. If a community
> commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't
> have to worry about forwarding comments.
> >>
> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities
> under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest
> transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those
> groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door
> approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar
> with the consultation process are also able to get their
> questions heard.
> >
> >
> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks
> that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically
> because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the
> OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well
> as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.).
> >
> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might
> ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the
> list and act themselves on whatever is sent in.
> >
> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_
> comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_
> comment to the OC's for action.
> >
> > Patrik
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150421/8b1cb324/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Comments Handling-21Apr15-KA-MU-JHAclean-reformatted.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150421/8b1cb324/attachment.docx>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list