hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:33:18PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing.
"there is a need to improve" is a very clear problem statement :-) A problem *statement* does not have to be "LIRs are starving!", but it defines whatever it is that is to be addressed by a policy proposal. For policy proposals to progress in a meaningful way, there needs to be some sort of common understanding on the "problem statement" aka "what is it that we are going to improve here, and why?" *before* a full-blown new policy text falls from the sky. If this is missing, usually people do not react in the most open and welcoming way to "hey, I have a new wall of text here!" ambush proposals. (A problem statement does not have to be "we're going to improve the world" class - it can be just "I, speaking for my LIR, have seen problems with <this>, and I think it can be improved by doing <that>" - which is a very clear statement on *why* things are proposed. Then the community can start discussing the *how* - but "why?" needs to come first) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279