[anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:10:46PM +0200, Tõnu Tammer via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> However, as the chair kindly pointed, RIPE policy development follows
> certain rules: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 which in
> first part of the document clearly states: "Conclusions are reached by
> consensus." According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion
> that all members of a group agree with.

Actually we operate on "rough consensus", so the result does not
have to be unanimous agremeent.

What it needs to have is
  - "some vague feeling of 'sufficient'" people support a proposal
  - opposing arguments are "sufficiently" addressed

This can be, indeed, very hard to judge depending on the nature of the
proposal and the opposing arguments.

But, in other words, if you have a single person jumping up and down
and stamping their feet "I DO NOT WANT THIS!! NEVAR!" this is *not*
sufficient to block a proposal - unless said person has strong actual
arguments that are not sufficiently addressed by the proposers.


> I standby my previous comment: the community (of RIPE) has grown
> encompassing legitimate business but also abusers who have become part
> of that community.

Since I am opposing the proposal on the table, this statement seems to
make me an "abuser".  Right?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200120/1cbb38e5/attachment.sig>