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

The problem is that many of the people objecting - I won’t say all, I know many of you over the years - are not from a security, or more properly an abuse and policy enforcement background.

Almost all of it is layer 9

--srs
________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 2:58:50 AM
To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...



Hi everyone,


On Sat, 9 May 2020, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Randy,
>
>>> Otherwise 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.
>>
(...)
>>
>> for a large segment of the community, and that which was pretty much
>> the original population, there is an underlying physics and shared
>> experience of moving packets, routing, circuits, bgp, ixen, ... that
>> gives us a common experience and understanding.

I must note, however, that security is embedded inside "..."

*sigh*

Carlos



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200510/cc4420f9/attachment.html>