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

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae <niculae at plesa.ro> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steffann,
> 
> I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you to make it public.
> Why are you tell me that I make an attack? Attack on who? Attack or defend a member that was in the cross fire of chairs & friends? Please read all the messages and you will see that Ciprian was under attack, he was the one first receiving insults and fight back only after.
> 
> My answers to your comments are as follows:
> 
> - the facts are that Gert got IPs from the last /8 just 2 weeks before he did the merger and he also keeps a /22 out of the last /8 for over 2 years without being announced. This shows that he got the IPs even if he didn't actually need them. This is not against the policies but it’s at least immoral.
> 
> - he compared actions not people and telling somebody to shut up is a severe offence. I saw some do not want to be democratic and civilised but I didn’t expect group leaders to support such an authoritarian attitude.
> 
> - I understand how the policy works. I don’t understand when open for discussion means “praise us and our ideas and shut up if you have anything to say against it as we don't care about your opinions"!
> 
> I hope I was clear and straight with the explanations of my intervention. I have no other reasons than democracy, justice and common sense. I can’t look and do nothing when I saw somebody not treated correct because he had a different opinion than the leaders.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Niculae Plesa
> 
> 
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 22:27, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Plesa,
>> 
>> Replying off-list because I don't want to drag this out any further.
>> 
>>> I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised.
>> 
>> What facts? That one of the working group chairs works at an ISP and has merged with another ISP? There was nothing to discuss there, and the baseless allegations made by Ciprian were not worth responding to. Gert kindly responded anyway, and there is nothing more to discuss.
>> 
>>> Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks bullshit and nobody complain about that language!
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but calling an argument bullshit vs using very offensive language like calling people Nazi's, comparing people to Hitler etc are in completely different leagues. Telling someone to shut up is not polite, but it's completely understandable after the abhorrent language used by Ciprian.
>> 
>>> So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of speaking is I N C O R R E C T !
>> 
>> Comparing people to Hitler and Nazi's is more than colourful language and figures of speech. Ciprian apparently understood that, as he has publicly apologised.
>> 
>> Now, let's discuss policy again, without hateful language, insults and allegations.
>> 
>>> I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian, Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up.
>> 
>> Don't worry, those voices have been heard.
>> 
>>> I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing the existing policy.
>> 
>> Noted.
>> 
>>> By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient quorum raises a HUGE question mark.
>> 
>> It was Ciprian making the attacks. And now you apparently. This end right now. These baseless accusations against proposers and chairs are unacceptable. The company that Gert works for has merged with another company, nothing more. I personally have never sold or bought address space at all. This "business in transferring IPs" of the chairs exists only in your imagination. Stop these allegations.
>> 
>> From your comments it is clear that you don't understand how policy development works in RIPE:
>> 
>> - someone from the community makes a proposal
>> - the working group chairs have no stake in the proposal
>> - the RIPE Policy Development Process is how we handle such proposals
>> - there are clearly defined discussion and review phases for debate
>> - decision making is based on rough consensus, not "quorum"
>> - there is a proper appeals procedure if you think the chairs have made a wrong decision
>> 
>> And that's all.
>> Sander
>> 
>