[address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Oct 19 14:19:11 CEST 2016
> On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk> wrote: > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. In your (utterly flawed) opinion. I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of this list have absolute confidence in the integrity of the WG’s co-chairs. If you think you can do better, feel free to stand the next time the appointment process runs. > As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Gert (or Sander) are “taking sides”. > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ? Here’s a simple rhetorical question for you. Do you think making unjustified ad-hominem attacks and insults like the above will encourage support for your position on this policy proposal? Your behaviour here is unacceptable and way, way, way out of line. > Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ? No. That’s *my* job. :-) Until you apologise and learn how to conduct yourself properly on this list, Ciprian SHUT UP.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]