[anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sun May 10 03:50:51 CEST 2020
The problem is that many of the people objecting - I won’t say all, I know many of you over the years - are not from a security, or more properly an abuse and policy enforcement background. Almost all of it is layer 9 --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 2:58:50 AM To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"... Hi everyone, On Sat, 9 May 2020, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Randy, > >>> Otherwise we change the way the working Groups works it will remain >>> unchanged for ever. I agree that we must get a way to vote or another >>> democratic way to get decisions. >> (...) >> >> for a large segment of the community, and that which was pretty much >> the original population, there is an underlying physics and shared >> experience of moving packets, routing, circuits, bgp, ixen, ... that >> gives us a common experience and understanding. I must note, however, that security is embedded inside "..." *sigh* Carlos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200510/cc4420f9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]