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

Sorry I hit reply instead of reply-all...

     
----- Forwarded Message -----
 From: "ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk>
 To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> 
 Sent: Friday, 11 March 2016, 17:06
 Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
   
Hi Sander
I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis expressed his opinion on my implementation :)
cheersdenis


      From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
 To: denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> 
Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>; "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
 Sent: Friday, 11 March 2016, 16:54
 Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
  
Hello Denis,

> Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.

Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody worthy...

Cheers,
Sander


   

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160311/f90fb96a/attachment.html>