> Therefore I suggest to make more fundamental changes that do address > these shortcomings. Here are three generic suggestions: > > 1) There should be a higher threshold to make an appeal because > appeals are costly to the community. > > 2) Appeals should be handled by a small number of people who commit to > handling it properly within a defined time line because someone has > to take responsibility. > > 3) Appeals should be fully and transparently documented from the first > submission until the conclusion, because this is the RIPE standard.
how may appeals has ripe had? how many appeals were upheld? how much sturm, drang, and omplaloskepsis are we willing suffer to tune it? imiho, your point one is the toughie. you want to require N signatures? > I have some implementation ideas already, similar but not identical to > the RIPE NCC arbitration procedure. However before I get to those I > would like to have some feedback on the general idea. i fear we have to go through this. if so, i respect and value your start. randy --- ra...@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
