[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
> So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable.

Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that
I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments
the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward".

If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would
show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't
consider this an overly strong argument either - right.  This is part of 
the WG chair's job when judging consensus.


Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been 
addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible
to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on
such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal
(and so we don't).

There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process
is fairly asymmetric here.

Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks
this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal
itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/b07e5225/attachment.sig>