Dear colleagues, The deadline for comments for the revised PDP documents was set to Friday this week (27 May). Considering that we all have a lot to follow-up with after RIPE 84 and that there is a holiday tomorrow in some countries, I would like to extend the deadline to Monday, 30 May 2022 before 06:00 UTC. Please let us know what you think so we can understand whether the revised version enjoys community consensus. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair On 29/04/2022 14:15, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The deadline for comments to the changes we proposed to the revised Policy Development Process (PDP) document has passed. We reviewed the suggestions we received and made some adjustments accordingly. The new version (v3) is here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/policy...
At the top of the document you will find a link to a page showing the diff to v2 (and also a diff to ripe-710, the current PDP document).
Below you find the main considerations and changes we made. In addition to that, the communication experts at the RIPE NCC cleaned up and tightened the language throughout the document to avoid misunderstandings.
Before issuing a last call, we would like to ask you to review this new version again carefully and provide any feedback before 27 May 2022. In order to be able to build consensus, it is also important to let us know if you are happy with this revised version of the document.
Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair =========
Main changes and considerations in revised PDP v3:
1. Introduction We removed the distinction between author and owner and the sentence related to that distinction in the introduction.
2. The Process Based on feedback received for earlier versions of this draft, we kept the strong suggestion to share an idea with the community before it enters the formal policy process. We clarified that this is not mandatory and strengthened the motivation.
2.1. Status of a proposal We reviewed the suggestion to add a fourth status “abandoned” in addition to open, accepted and withdrawn. We decided not to add “abandoned” as this case is already covered by "withdrawn" or “open” (in case someone else picks up the proposal).
4. Appeals Process We did not see enough support for introducing a separate appeals body. But based on experience with the first appeal, the entire appeals process is defined a lot more clearly now.
5. Changes to the PDP We received a comment that changes to the PDP should follow the same process as other documents in RIPE. RIPE documents are typically agreed by community consensus. While a specific, formal process has been agreed for development of RIPE policy, enthusiasm in the community for using this process for other RIPE documents is currently low. Therefore we kept section 5. that describes how the PDP document is changed through community consensus.