[address-policy-wg] PDP issues

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad 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?

Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with?
Sometimes there is more than one.

>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.

Most of the time, even Phase 1 consists of "+1"

>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.

Requiring both sides to argue their point does not change that.

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

You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one
side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any
argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and
reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere
I wish to go back to.

rgds,
Sascha Luck