[address-policy-wg] PDP issues
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PDP issues
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PDP issues
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Wed Jun 10 13:54:44 CEST 2015
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >> Most proposals have some "rationale against" and >> a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the >> rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal". >But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with? Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? Sometimes there is more than one. >Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond >any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight >should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none. > >The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support >for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with >ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and >so on. Most of the time, even Phase 1 consists of "+1" >In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not >only better wording and in some cases significantly changed >proposal texts, but also in the complete workover or even >withdrawal of the proposal in question. Requiring both sides to argue their point does not change that. >This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, >and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process. You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere I wish to go back to. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PDP issues
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PDP issues
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]