Hi, On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:17:20AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Does the PDP specify that expressing support needs to include any specific reason for said support?
This is a question that we have in AP regularily. My stance as AP WG chair is that it is not required - if a comment is basically a "I can support <proposal> as it is written, I see the need to do something, and I agree with <proposal> as the method to do so", a plain "I support <proposal>" conveys the same message. *OTOH*, if there is a heated discussion with strong counterarguments, and there is no clear consensus emerging, it certainly helps the chairs and the discussion if the "+1" voices showing up later express why they think that "the proposal is good as it stands" while others are so strongly disagreeing with that. (And technically, we do not need to reach consensus in discussion phase - there *should* be "some support from the community" and no "obvious killer argument" opposing the proposal, but consensus only needs to be reached at the end of the review phase) So - up to the proposers and chairs to decide whether to move on, and it certainly *helps* these to judge arguments if arguments are brought forward... Gert Doering -- speaking from experience as AP chair, not positioned to decide on an anti-abuse policy proposal -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279