[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Mar 11 16:54:34 CET 2016
Hello Denis, > Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight. Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody worthy... Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160311/be474011/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]