[anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?

Wed Apr 3 15:28:28 CEST 2019

El 3/4/19 15:05, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> escribió:

    On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
    >"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just say nothing or say "I agree".

    I don't actually agree with that premise. ("Lack of disagreement
    is more important than agreement") Silence is not consent. 
    Insofar, the "+1" is useful as an expression of consent.
    Of course, that also means that anyone who does not "+1" should
    at least be considered as possibly non-consenting. 

I don't think so. Silence is to be taken as consent. If you don't care don't respond. If you care, you express your disagreement.

    >That means that "One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus", but if there is a minor number of insignificant non-addressed issues, having many "+1", should take preference than having silence or the opposing ones.

    No, and most assuredly not when it is so *obviously* a case of
    "I've emailed all my friends and colleagues to support me" 
    (You're not the only one guilty of this, I regularly receive
    requests to "support me in this") But, I think the chairs are
    experienced enough to give such contributions the weight they
    deserve.

I never done it with my friends, but if I've an event with ISPs about a topic relevant to them and I can make a short talk to ask them their opinion, it is perfectly valid even if they NEVER participated before, same with related mailing list, etc. I never will (and never have done) ask those groups "please support me". My way is please, read this, I think is good for the community, and provide your inputs.

    The only reason to even *have* a PDP is so issues with proposals
    can be addressed. And I take this to mean *all* issues.

Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.

    >I'm tempted to say this is like a negotiation, but not exactly the same. I think everybody can understand what I mean (in Spanish will be much easier to explain!), and always trying my best and NEVER did a policy proposal because I've any special personal or business interest, up to each participant to believe me or not. I just do it because I think is good for the community, for Internet, even if it means investing my (small) amount of available time, out of sleep or leisure time.

    Nobody, as far as I can ascertain, has leveled such an
    accusation, so why defend against it? Proverbs 28:1?

I didn't mean that was the case, again, English is not my language. What I'm trying to say is that when you contribute to the community development (at least in my personal case), you should not take a personal/business position.

However, as you mention it, it actually happened to me and in RIPE. I can find the emails for you in the addressing policy, if I recall correctly it was during discussion of 2016-04.

    >I *really* prefer to write and defend 100 new policy proposals than being a co-chair (super-heroes for me!). We don't say it often, and we should repeat it much more: Thanks for all that work.

    Pfft, appeal to flattery. Though it is to be said that sifting
    through this list is a task worthy of a Hercules.

    rgds,
    SL

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.