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

On 09/03/2016 12:05, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
>>>
>>>   - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
>>>   - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>>
>> This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
>> implementation all along.

Better is a relative word. It would be better to improve the operational 
usability and solve the problems you have without breaking the design.

I have worked on the design, development and support of this database 
for 15 years. I know it inside out. I know what problems it has. I have 
seen the mistakes both new and old users have made. I have seen the 
crazy things users have done because the database semantics, syntax, 
business rules allowed it.

If you make the changes you are asking for I guarantee within 2 or 3 
years people will be saying abuse-c is a failure, lets invent something 
new to fix the mess.

The trouble with these technical mailing lists is it is the same very 
very small number of people out of the 12k members and other interested 
parties who keep pushing the same ideas to fix your problems regardless 
of the consequences. As long as it works OK for you, everything must be 
fine. None of you are willing to think out of the box. I proposed some 
options for fixing these problems 2 years ago on RIPE Labs. I am not 
saying they are the best solutions, but no one has even commented on 
them in 2 years.

This is not an open, bottom up process. This is a cartel of old timers 
who make all the decisions so they get their own way. This needs to be 
fixed.

cheers
denis

>>
>> Strong +1.
>
> Ditto.
>
> - Håvard
>