[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Fri Mar 16 04:29:42 CET 2018
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:44:44 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or > >oppressive? > Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once > accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this > community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it > as onerous and oppressive as they want. > within the implementation. (wherein there is nothing onerous or oppressive - as all seem to agree...) > Furthermore, from the general tenor of this discussion I can't > help assuming that 2017-02 won't be the end of it and I have to > take this into account when considering the (de)merits of > 2017-02. > to object because you may object in the future to something unspecified or unknown is the same as just objecting for the sake of objecting. > Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why > does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of > email (in 2018!) for contact information? > because everyone has email. not everyone has telegram, whatsup, insertnameofyourcommshere or simply 'trusts' all java(script)/apps from wherever... Regards Andre
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]