[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hi all,

I said I'd stay out of this "discussion" as there was a lot of back and
forth on it and it seems to have been getting quite heated. That said
...

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> (And, as a call for order: further personal attacks on the personal
> integrity of a proposer will not help bring forward your argument.  If 
> you do not like a proposal, bring forth factual arguments that people
> can answer - personal attacks will just disqualify your voice when the
> chairs go about judging consensus)

I have to endorse this statement fully. As a relative newbie participant
in the APWG, I think this has to be the most important point. If someone
brings a proposal to the community (for whatever their reason) it
shouldn't give people the right to defame or question their integrity.

Certainly question the proposal and write a counter proposal but why
choose to single out the individual that's raise the proposal to
question their intent. You/we either agree with the proposal or we
don't. Simple - that's how I see it anyway.

Peace out...


-- 

Mick O'Donovan | Network Engineer | BT Ireland |
Website: http://www.btireland.net
Looking Glass: http://lg.as2110.net
Peering Record: http://as2110.peeringdb.com
AS-SET Macro: AS-BTIRE | ASN: 2110
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150424/6963a659/attachment.sig>