[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:49:58PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> I know Gert and you very well, and I don???t have any doubt that it was not done in a ???malicious??? way, but I think the PDP has not been followed correctly.
> 
> Again, is not a matter of this concrete proposal, is a generic concern on the PDP application.

We've been doing this numerous times, and nobody from the community has 
ever objected to "extending one of the periods to get more discussion
going, or more input", or filed a formal appeal based on such procedure.

So, please make up your mind what is bothering you

 - us not following the PDP properly
 - a policy proposal not to your liking
 - the PDP as excercised here leading to an outcome not to your liking
 - your own policy proposal not yet submitted to the machinery, so a
   somewhat competing (if inferior in your opinion) proposal advancing
 - the WG chairs beeing bloody idiots (this will change soon anyway)

none of this will change our decision, but it would make it more easy
to the rest of the readers to understand why you're so angry *right now*,
while neither the announcement of the extention nor the voices of support
in the four weeks following said announcement seem to have bothered you
in the least.

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: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180115/a53796b4/attachment.sig>