[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Tue Mar 8 11:07:08 CET 2016
On 07/03/2016 22:12, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:08:47AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: >> I may have missed the logic behind this. Any RIPE WG can make >> policy, why should AA-WG be any different? > > aawg is not different, the problem is precisely that any WG can > make policy. There should be ONE list on which policy is debated > and consensus, if any, is determined. Which is the way other RIRs > work and which is the way RIPE was *supposed* to work before a > lot of empire-building happened (see how apwg is the only list > with "policy" in the name?) Empire building? I fear your view of the life of working group chairs differs greatly from reality. However if people wish this to change, there is, of course, a way to achieve that, in a bottom-up fashion. AP-WG also has the word "Address" in it and not all policies deal directly with addresses. > I do not want to be subscribed to every godsdamn mailing list > @ripe.net, but I *have* to because otherwise some policy will be > imposed on me that I never even heard about and that supposedly > "has reached consensus". And this is why we have policy announce, so you don't have to. policy-announce at ripe.net AP-WG will be the source of most policies, of course, but keeping an eye on policy-announce means you can pop in and out of other lists as necessary. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]