This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Wed Apr 3 15:05:02 CEST 2019
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just say nothing or say "I agree". I don't actually agree with that premise. ("Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement") Silence is not consent. Insofar, the "+1" is useful as an expression of consent. Of course, that also means that anyone who does not "+1" should at least be considered as possibly non-consenting. >That means that "One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus", but if there is a minor number of insignificant non-addressed issues, having many "+1", should take preference than having silence or the opposing ones. No, and most assuredly not when it is so *obviously* a case of "I've emailed all my friends and colleagues to support me" (You're not the only one guilty of this, I regularly receive requests to "support me in this") But, I think the chairs are experienced enough to give such contributions the weight they deserve. The only reason to even *have* a PDP is so issues with proposals can be addressed. And I take this to mean *all* issues. >I'm tempted to say this is like a negotiation, but not exactly the same. I think everybody can understand what I mean (in Spanish will be much easier to explain!), and always trying my best and NEVER did a policy proposal because I've any special personal or business interest, up to each participant to believe me or not. I just do it because I think is good for the community, for Internet, even if it means investing my (small) amount of available time, out of sleep or leisure time. Nobody, as far as I can ascertain, has leveled such an accusation, so why defend against it? Proverbs 28:1? >I *really* prefer to write and defend 100 new policy proposals than being a co-chair (super-heroes for me!). We don't say it often, and we should repeat it much more: Thanks for all that work. Pfft, appeal to flattery. Though it is to be said that sifting through this list is a task worthy of a Hercules. rgds, SL
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]