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

Am 12.11.2014 um 12:39 schrieb Lu:
> "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.
>>
Hi Lu,

I think that names are not that important, content is more important. 
Would you please send a proposal to the lists (IPv6, Address Policy, 
routing, anti abuse and connect). Please include your ideas for new 
names, new charters and the new structure of the working groups. Do not 
forget the routing WG, the connect WG  and the anti abuse WG, because 
they also deal with IPv4 and IPv6 (routing, peering, IP based 
blacklists, etc.).

Would you like to present the new structure of WGs in Amsterdam next May 
in the plenary? This would then start the official bottom up process. 
And then "we", this includes you, can discuss this based on your ideas 
and proposals.

Regards,

Wilhelm