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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat May 9 16:23:52 CEST 2020
I am aware of this and aware that calling for a vote on any such matter would be a significant departure from procedure. Having one might at least lay this discussion to rest once and for all. I’ve seen variants of it for several years now. From: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt> Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 6:10 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>, anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Subject: About "consensus" and "voting"... Hi Suresh, Gert, All, "member organizations represented by" -- this only happens at the RIPE NCC GM, twice a year. The PDP doesn't happen at the RIPE NCC GM, afaik, whether we like it or not. When polarisation is obvious, "consensus" is impossible and everything tend to remain as is... Cheers, Carlos On Sat, 9 May 2020, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > In a case where the community is polarised to this extent it would be better to break with procedure and call a vote for once. With member organizations represented by their abuse team heads, rather than IP / routing people, so that > the organisation?s stance on this is clear. > > > > From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net> > Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 3:57 PM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> > Cc: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>, anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") > > Hi, > > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types for it? Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases. > > There is no voting. > > It's either "there is sufficient support and counterarguments have been > adequately addressed" or "no consensus, rewrite or withdraw". > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200509/0fd833f9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]