[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
> > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
> > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
> > extent the person making a certain argument).
> 
> I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from the
> WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
> who is making it and not objectively ?

If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain
minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very
loudly that they will oppose the proposal.  It would be very surprising 
to see otherwise.

Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their
abusive behaviour?  Not very much so.

Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means,
so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.


I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating
RIPE DB T&C, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion
is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible,
well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than 
yelling...

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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/0bc91c68/attachment.sig>