[discuss] Clarifications on some recent Changes
adiel at afrinic.net
Wed Feb 5 14:35:05 UTC 2014
On 2014-02-05, at 17:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> On the report:
> On 05-Feb-14 07:14, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>> A4. The issue was considered in some depth. That is why there are
>> four different measures for assessing a particular issue’s overall
>> importance to /1net: Importance, Interest, Agreement and Resolution.
>> You can find an explanation of each in the summary. The idea is that
>> these four factors provide a useful balance across posts.
> I like the scheme, but I have questions about the execution.
> Who actually made all the judgements. It this something the /1net-SC did*?
No not the SC. This is the first attempt taking into consideration everything from the beginning and till 30-Jan-2014. As mentioned, going forward we will try to produce a weekly summary and based on all the comments and feedback we have received so far, we will also try to finalise the future summaries through a more cooperative method (wiki/etherpad - to be further discussed within the SC).
> Was any consideration given to using online tools to crowdsource these appraisals?
Will be considered for future release.
> Is there any dynamic elasticity in these judgements? Can the change over time? What mechanism is used for that?
Of course YES, as I mention in one of my previous post, these are not conclusive judgement, and we should be able challenge them and update when and where needed.
> * speaking of the /1net-SC:
> Does it keep an open email archive so we can all follow along with their considerations?
Yes right from the beginning the archive of its mailing has been open:
> Are the calls recorded and will a way be provided for the rest of the entity to be able to listen and review?
Now that the SC section is created on the web site, minutes of all its meeting/calls will be published (currently you can still read them from the archives).
> If we aren't transparent, we doom /1net to becoming yet another boondoggle in my view.
Please keep sending your reasonable feedback in order to improve the transparency. From what I'm witnessing on this list people seems to have different view and standard related to transparency, which we have to continuously managed through a balanced and efficient process.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss