I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate ideas to their value.
But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. Also NCC should not express opinions but implement policies fairly.
It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ?
What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can support their ideas, as well as there are many people which I admire and which I can heavily oppose when it's the case. That's what we all shoud do. But you are not one of us, you are the Chair so we have different expectations. Maybe we shouldn't but then what is really your "job" over here ?
Ciprian
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <
gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote
> > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
> > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
> > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
> > extent the person making a certain argument).
>
> I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from the
> WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
> who is making it and not objectively ?
If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain
minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very
loudly that they will oppose the proposal. It would be very surprising
to see otherwise.
Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their
abusive behaviour? Not very much so.
Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means,
so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.
I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating
RIPE DB T&C, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion
is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible,
well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than
yelling...
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279