[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 07/03/2016 23:37, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> I'm just going to go "+1" on that as I couldn't have said it any
> better.
>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:31:51PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:02:26PM +0100, denis wrote:
>>> > The requirement for role: objects is also annoying
>>> > if all there is is just a single person - so admin-c:, tech-c:
>>> point to
>>> > "the person that is responsible for everything", while abuse-c:
>>> needs a
>>> > new object.
>>>
>>> Please learn from past mistakes.
>>
>> Yes, please *do so*.  Do not design something that is going to win a
>> price
>> at a computer scientist conference - design something that is easy to
>> work
>> with.

I think you have made that comment as many times as I have suggested a 
review of the data model. If we had followed through with the other 
changes I proposed at the time it would have been much easier to work 
with. But trying to get any major improvements to this massively over 
complicated database on these mailing lists is as hopeless as asking 
Bush, Blair and Putin to make the world a better place.

The same small group of people who dominate these mailing lists are not 
interested in making the database easy to use for new (and old) members. 
Why should you, many of you have been using it for 10+ years and know 
how it works. If you saw the way new members struggle to understand just 
the basics of using this database on a training course you would realise 
how crazy it is not to modernise it. And that is just the data input. 
Understanding the algebra that comes out of it is another can of worms. 
This data model and the issues of raw data vs information seriously 
needs a revolution....

...and yes I know changing the data model does not stop people from 
entering emails as devnull but trust and responsibility is a separate 
thread from easy usage.

Anyway, that is my rant for the night :)

cheers
denis

>>
>> The current abuse-c: design is annoying, because it requires extra work
>> to get to the point of documenting what you want to document.  So people
>> (remember: we want *people* to use that, and put useful information in
>> there) are annoyed, and stop bothering.
>>
>> I'm a bit more verbose about this, but if you ever wondered *why*
>> abuse-c:
>> isn't the huge success people expected: this is part of the "why".  It is
>> way too annoying to use.
>>
>> [..]
>>> > Maybe some extended outreach activity could be started to actually
>>> ensure
>>> > that some human is alive at ERX holders that the NCC had no contact
>>> > anymore since <x> years - but friendly, not pushy.  They have been
>>> here
>>> > first, we have no authority over them.
>>>
>>> 2007-01?
>>
>> One of the early version of 2007-01 indeed covered legacy resource
>> holders,
>> and was killed in WG chairs last call - for precisely that reason.  The
>> final proposal that was accepted only covered resources given out by the
>> RIPE NCC.
>>
>> Precisely my point.
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>        -- NetMaster
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>