[anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

Hi everyoneOtherwise we change the way the working Groups works it will remain unchanged for ever. I agree that we must get a way to vote or another democratic way to get decisions.If we don't change something in the process it better close this mailing lists that only exist to give the fake image that the community it's workingSREnviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.<div>
</div><div>
</div><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Mensagem original --------</div><div>De : Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> </div><div>Data: 09/05/20  13:41  (GMT+00:00) </div><div>Para: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>, anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net </div><div>Assunto: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"... </div><div>
</div>
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/20200509/76618dba/attachment.html>