> Which then allows you to mistakenly claim there is or isn't consensus.
> Which itself is prone to abuse.
you may want to take a look at
7282 On Consensus and Humming in the IETF. P. Resnick. June 2014.
but we have been here before
--
Ettore Bugatti, maker of the finest cars of his day,
Which then allows you to mistakenly claim there is or isn't consensus.
Which itself is prone to abuse.
On 6/10/2020 2:28 am, Brian Nisbet wrote:
All,
I'm on leave from work this week and not checking this email a/c as
often as I normally would (or, hopefully, at all this week!), but I
All,
I'm on leave from work this week and not checking this email a/c as often as I
normally would (or, hopefully, at all this week!), but I wanted to pop in to
clarify something.
We do not vote on proposals in the RIPE community. We discuss them and either
consensus is reached or it is not.
Hi Alex,
The consensus is not measured in terms of “how much” support, but if the
objections have been refuted.
And, in case you missed that, the sentence “some clear support for the policy
during the discussion phase” is quoted from the Co-chairs email, not my words:
You don't know that it was "marginal" support, because no count was ever
conducted.
The Chair never asked for a "vote", and then when people didn't "vote"
(because they had never been asked to), they concluded (wrongly) that
there was no support for the proposal.
On 5/10/2020 8:51 pm,
Jordi,
The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support
for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal"
between some and clear.
I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider
retracting your appeal.
--
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE
PDP).
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message
