[db-wg] Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Hi Denis,

I can not believe that you are commenting on my view on how this should 
be implemented.

On 3/11/16 8:29 PM, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> HI Randy
>
> My last comment on this thread (probably)....
>
> The position he stated was not conducive with his experience.
What do you mean? I have 15+ years experience of using the RIPE 
Database, 7 of which I was a colleague of yours at the RIPE NCC. I 
commented based on my experience. Is my experience of a lower value than 
yours?
> He offered no supporting arguments, just an emotive comment that was 
> highly critical of something I developed.
I did not mean to criticize your work, I just wanted to say that the 
implementation could have been done differently.

As for supporting arguments, I think that I did offered supporting 
arguments. I think that abuse-c should have been implemented just as 
tech-c or admin-c already are implemented since the creation of the RIPE 
Database.
> It is like me saying the development of a market for selling IP 
> addresses is poor. Does that statement from me carry any weight?
I see no link between the two, other than you trying to attack back. I 
have not developed the IPv4 market.
Your statement carries the same weight as mine in a discussion.
> As the developer of what he claimed to be poor, I think I had the 
> right to point this out.
You took it as a personal attack, you should have not as this was 
developed by the RIPE NCC and not by the person Denis.. If you felt 
offended about my comment, why did you not feel offended about Gert's 
comments, which were similar?
>
> But as Brian said this is way of the topic now of adding abuse-c to 
> legacy resources. So I won't make any more comments about the design 
> of abuse-c in this thread. I did say long ago in this discussion that 
> the technical aspects of abuse-c should be the subject of another 
> discussion. But people just kept coming back with arguments against it.
So, just comment on this topic then. No need to send several e-mails 
'defending' your work. You no longer work at the RIPE NCC and what has 
been done, is done.

 From my point of view, abuse-c in legacy objects should be as mandatory 
as it is for resource objects registered by the RIPE NCC.

So, yes, I support this proposal, I would only have done it differently 
to begin with.
>
> I wish some of you would put as much effort into constructive 
> discussions about the more serious technical issues of the database 
> (including the route object issue and the data model) as you do into 
> either condemning me or blanking me out.
I was under the impression that my comment was constructive.
I never condemned you nor did I ever try to blank you out, you have the 
right to comment just as I do. I just wanted to voice my opinion that 
this could have been done differently to start with and I was actually 
only agreeing with Gert that abuse-c can be done differently and (from 
my point of view) better.
> The clear and obvious refusal by the very small, unrepresentative 
> group of people on these mailing lists to even engage in any kind of 
> discussion on an important issue I have raised many times will not do 
> this community or the RIR system any good in the long term.
Do not compare apples and pears, one thing is the abuse-c and an other 
thing is the route object issue or the greater data model... I see you 
are sending dozens of e-mails trying to impose your view on how the RIPE 
Database model should work.. Maybe you are right, maybe things should be 
done differently. Just come up with a policy proposal instead of making 
so much noise on the mailing list.
But maybe you are wrong, and you should also try to take a step back 
when you see that the others do not agree with you.

You are talking about the 'very small, unrepresentative group of people 
on these mailing lists'. Well, these are the people that want to voice 
their opinion. The others can not be bothered to comment or participate 
in these processes, they gladly accept what is decided on behalf of them 
by this 'small group'.
>
> cheers
> denis
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> *To:* ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
> *Cc:* Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>; "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" 
> <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 March 2016, 2:53
> *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy 
> proposal 2016-01
>
> >> Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular
> >> user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated
> >> statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.
Denis, how do you know how much data I input in the RIPE Database? You 
are making assumptions based on a very poor (pun intended) understanding 
on what I do.
>
> > I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis
> > expressed his opinion on my implementation :)
>
>
> your opinion was of elvis not his position.  this is called ad homina,
> which you seem to repeat
>
and repeat, and repeat, and repeat....

let's stop this nonsense and talk about what is really important at this 
moment. Should abuse-c be mandatory, optional, or not at all in the 
legacy resource objects? I already said above that I do support this 
policy proposal but I would like to see it implemented differently, even 
if that means that the RIPE NCC may need to change the way abuse-c was 
implemented initially.

cheers,
elvis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20160311/383b3be9/attachment.html>