Hi Sylvain
You seem to think there is some issue here of going against some
consensus or being disruptive. This is not the case. The simple fact
is, with so many topics on this mailing list, there is NO discussion.
If there is NO discussion there can be NO consensus. That is the basis
of this old
Hi Niall
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 16:19, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> Hi, Denis.
>
> On 19 Jul 2023, at 18:41, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
>
> > One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their
> > opinion that all WG chairs should sit silently in the background, post
> > an
Hi Nick
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 16:41, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
>
>
> the job of a chair is to ensure that the business of the forum is done,
> in an orderly and efficient way.
Where is this stated?
> From this point of view, an "active"
> chair is good, and to be welcomed. What isn't
{change the topic. focus: basic tasks}
Dear RIPE DB-WG,
Hope this email finds you in good health.
Please see my comments below inline...
Thanks.
Le mercredi 19 juillet 2023, denis walker via db-wg a
écrit :
> Colleagues
>
> One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their
>
Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 20/07/2023 14:50:
As mentioned in my Operational Update at RIPE86, I propose to remove
these obsolete remarks from all objects, on *Thursday 27th July*.
this + removal of the "LOCKED" notice look completely reasonable.
Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this
Randy Bush via db-wg wrote on 20/07/2023 00:22:
I approve of more active WG management for the good of the internet.
i do not.
i am ok with a co-chair explicitly taking their co-chair hat off and
having an opinion with the same weight as everyone else.
i am as happy with activist wg-chairs
Hi, Denis.
On 19 Jul 2023, at 18:41, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their
> opinion that all WG chairs should sit silently in the background, post
> an occasional review and wait to declare consensus or not.
Citations would help me,
Dear colleagues,
The "NONE" authentication scheme was deprecated in the RIPE database in 2004:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/deprecation-of-the-none-authentication-scheme
At that time, "remarks:" attributes were added to objects in the RIPE database
to explain this
Dear colleagues,
The "rev-srv:" attribute was deprecated in inetnum objects in the RIPE database
in April 2009:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2009-April/001130.html
However the "rev-srv:" attribute was not removed but was converted into a
"remarks:" attribute.
As
Hi Cynthia,
> On 20 Jul 2023, at 00:32, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
>
> I think I still support this proposal if it would be realistic to
> implement without breaking too many things.
> Like what would the impact on RDAP be for example?
> I guess what I am saying is that I want to see a
10 matches
Mail list logo
