[address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:25:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> We have already seen several samples of discrimination in the RIPE community since some months ago. Is this one more? Should we change the principles of openness and inclusivity?

You can not force random volunteer people (with no formal power or mandate)
to work with you.

This has nothing to do with "inclusivity" but with "it's my choice who
I spend my time with".  

It's also only discrimination if there is a process for joining and you 
are rejected because you are "Jordi", instead of generic reasoning, like
"we have enough people already".  (OTOH, with all these accusations being
thrown around by you, I'm sure all volunteer groups will all be totally 
happy to have you on board, and will be making exceptions to their rules,
 just for you.  Which would not be discriminating, of course.)


Now, for everything relevant to policy decisions, this happens on the
public list.  If you haven't seen anything, this is because nothing has
happened yet.

Gert Doering
        -- volunteer
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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/20220316/731e2e73/attachment.sig>