[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Apr 16 09:56:58 UTC 2015
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...
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM
To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
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
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff <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)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se]
> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM
> To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
> CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [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> wrote:
>> 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.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg