[db-wg] data model

Hi Elvis

I will only make 3 comments just to put the record straight.

On 12/03/2016 06:55, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>>
> I see you
> are sending dozens of e-mails trying to impose your view on how the RIPE
> Database model should work..

Whilst commenting on other things I often point out that the old data 
model is one of the factors. I have not even offered any views as yet on 
how it should/could work....I simply asked for a professional discussion 
on the data model "to see" IF it could be improved.

> 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.

Changing the data model is not a policy issue and needs to start with 
technical brainstorming sessions by people with open minds.

> 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.

And that is the issue. No one disagrees with me! But only one person (on 
these lists) agrees with me. So in theory that should be a consensus for 
moving forward. But generally every time I mention the data model my 
comments are totally ignored. People reply to my other comments in 
emails and often physically cut out the reference to the data model so 
it does not get perpetuated in any discussion. This is clear and 
preserved in the mailing list archives. So it is not possible to have an 
'open and transparent' discussion on an important technical subject for 
the registry. Simplifying the data model benefits new members more than 
the people on these lists. The only thing I see is that it is obvious 
the people on these lists are not interested in even discussing the 
topic. Professional courtesy would mean some people would at least state 
their objection to even discussing this topic, even if it is "leave it 
alone, 'we' don't want it changed, it is of no benefit to us and we 
don't care about the wider community". It is not possible to have an 
open discussion on these lists if you hit a topic they don't want to 
talk about.

I don't think there is any point having this discussion now on these 
lists. The silence is clear what their views are. I am looking at other 
avenues to raise this subject, away from these lists.

My last comment on the topic...for now...

cheers
denis

>
> 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
>