[anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing? -- was 2019-03

Hi,
(please see inline)

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

(...)
>
> That may have just been because those have been seen here before.
>
> That said, I agree with the general statement. Rather than "+1"
> every supporter should provide *some* evidence that they've at
> least *read* the proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, this means
> *every* supporter, regardless of nationality or length of
> subscription.

I think that was already clarified. Agreement is agreement. If you are 
trying to come up with a new rule, then you can write a new policy 
proposal about that... :-)


(...)
>
> It used to be until the charter was changed. I didn't agree with
> that then, I don't agree with it now. For exactly the reasons
> that are now becoming evident.

You want everyone to discuss by your own set of rules -- that's clear.


(...)
>
> Not all. Only those who suddenly turn up, "+1" and then disappear
> again, as they undoubtedly will (or perhaps until *your* next
> proposal comes up?)

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals

I'm also the co-author of 2019-02. Unfortunately the support for that one 
is rather smaller. You can go and check that thread. You might want also 
to check what the other 2019-02 co-author (Sander) stated about 2019-03.



>> I'm not going reply with a different Wikipedia URL, but i suspect you know 
>> which one i'm thinking about :-))
>
> No, I don't have a clue. Enlighten me?

Not going there, sorry. It doesn't serve the purpose of discussing 
2019-03.



(...)
> What I do not welcome is "support" that takes the form of
> subscribing here, plonking down "+1" and then vanishing into
> obscurity again. Which is (at least the Wikipedia) definition of a 
> meat-puppet.

Name-calling targeted at multiple people. Not very useful.


(...)
> Easy. judge the worth of support at least in part on previous
> contributions, and I fervently hope this is what the chairs are
> doing.

You don't like/accept people supporting a proposal you don't like. That's 
not useful to discuss the proposal itself too.


(...) 
> If not, I would like the opportunity to rise a hundred opponents
> to each provide a "-1"...

Then talk to people, explain them why they should oppose the proposal, and 
wait for them to subscribe to the list and tell everybody what are 
exactly their concerns about the proposal.


Cheers,
Carlos


> rgds,
> SL
>