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

On 07/03/2016 22:12, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:08:47AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> I may have missed the logic behind this. Any RIPE WG can make
>> policy, why should AA-WG be any different?
>
> aawg is not different, the problem is precisely that any WG can
> make policy. There should be ONE list on which policy is debated
> and consensus, if any, is determined. Which is the way other RIRs
> work and which is the way RIPE was *supposed* to work before a
> lot of empire-building happened (see how apwg is the only list
> with "policy" in the name?)

Empire building? I fear your view of the life of working group chairs 
differs greatly from reality. However if people wish this to change, 
there is, of course, a way to achieve that, in a bottom-up fashion.

AP-WG also has the word "Address" in it and not all policies deal 
directly with addresses.

> I do not want to be subscribed to every godsdamn mailing list
> @ripe.net, but I *have* to because otherwise some policy will be
> imposed on me that I never even heard about and that supposedly
> "has reached consensus".

And this is why we have policy announce, so you don't have to. 
policy-announce at ripe.net

AP-WG will be the source of most policies, of course, but keeping an eye 
on policy-announce means you can pop in and out of other lists as necessary.

Brian