[address-policy-wg] PDP issues

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net> wrote:

>
> Most proposals have some "rationale against" and
> a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the
> rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal".


But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with?

For a "+1", that's very easy: it's the proposal that was linked to.

For a "-1", they at the very least could point out what it is they think is
wrong, and how.

Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond
any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight
should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none.

The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support
for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with
ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and so on.

In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not only better
wording and in some cases significantly changed proposal texts, but also in
the complete workover or even withdrawal of the proposal in question.

So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point.
>

This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, and is
damaging to a fair and reasonable process.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/f83024cd/attachment.html>