[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 16:52:41 CET 2012
Hello, I am sorry, I should say that some people definitely misinterpreted my words. And probably not only mines I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. I am not sure that I want to spend time to fill a formal appeal, however, may be. Thanks for your considerations, Géza On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg <immo.ripe at be.free.de > wrote: > Gert wrote: > > Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions > > following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: > [...] > > - statements of "we do not have consensus" > > (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be > unanimous > > Remco Van Mook) > > I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we > have > consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has > not > objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. > > Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first > place. > > Immo > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120105/a8df65d9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]