[address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

Hi

(This will be my last post in the list about this topic)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
> > feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the
> > definition of the *need*.
> >
> > And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the
> > community should help people understand how things work, not everybody
> can
> > afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training,
> mailing
> > list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help
> people
> > learning.
>
> This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies,
> and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies.
>
> Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an
> ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to
> that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you).
>

I think I know we won't return to the state of IPv4 plentiness fairly well,
really not needed anyone tell me that.

But the question was about understanding a long existed concept.

If such question, in which I believe I do have certain amount of clue about
the policy already, was not even allowed to posted in this list. where else
on this planet you can discuss and learn RIPE policy(understand past policy
are equally important as understand the current one for one to really
understand the policy development process)? Are we really only open doors
to the person can afford to go to RIPE meeting every time? I find it is
almost impossible to learn RIPE policy and discuss it in the real life, no
one knows RIPE, my current amount of knowledge are from my 10 plus Ripe
meetings and going to training at my company's cost, in which I believe it
will be very hard to apply to every one at my age.  we already discuss
about aging of the RIPE community, we really really need to allow people to
ask dum question here but not kicking off anything the list that you think
it is no use(and I appreciate your answer of course).

This subject can concluded by one or few answers on the simple matter, it
does not need to be that long. The time you spend on arguing with me about
relevance, the question is already concluded.

And moreover such argument are beyond my question and I am very
disappointed I need to spend more time to discuss "can I discuss policy
here" rather than to my real question.




> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151204/e2e97e5f/attachment.html>