[address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming

"We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".



> On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:29, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy?
> 
> No.
> 
>> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well.
> 
> RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
>