On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:31:20PM +0200, denis wrote: Dear Denis
On 14/04/2016 08:41, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:07:01AM +0200, denis wrote:
Denis
You really are barking up the wrong tree here.
Nice try, but you misinterpret my intentions.
This is a very condescending remark.
I could personally perceive the same way your comment about barking up the wrong tree. Maybe one of us is oversensitive. Or this is plain language barrier.
The hijacking issue was there for years. I'm just surprised that it was not raised by you during the discussion of issue 221.
Again this is another condescending remark. You imply that I should know everything at all times. If you knew about this hijacking issue that you
Not at all. I just declare that I'm surprised.
say has been around for years, then as a co-chair of this working group why did you not mention it at the time?
Oh. I did.
You seem to be determined to 'prove' I am wrong suggesting rolling back the name change would fix this issue. But you don't seem to accept that the action you have taken has also NOT fixed the problem but caused many more serious problems.
Please refrain from suggesting that I have done something.
The whole tone of this thread is one of attack and aggression towards me. You are not discussing the issues but you are discussing me. You are relentlessly pursuing my comments and looking back in history to prove me wrong, instead of trying to move forward. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of.
I do not accuse you of anything.
Moreover, keep saying the mantra about causing many more serious problems is neither the proof of this thesis nor the solution to anything. If you know/see something which could seriously improve the quality of the data, security model, business rules, etc, just bring it on the table.
Sorry but you are missing the point here. It is not a thesis and I have stated the serious problem. I was part of the Data Protection Task Force many years ago. I spent a lot of time with the RIPE NCC's lawyers discussing the data protection issues around the RIPE Database.
The action you have taken HAS already created a data protection issue.
Once again - please refrain from writing that I have done something here. At least that is how I understand constant usage of the word "you".
There are now about a million personal data sets in the database that the data subjects cannot change. The RIPE NCC has stated it will not unlock any of these objects as they cannot be sure who they refer to. The RIPE NCC, as Data Controller of this database has a million personal data sets in their database that they cannot assert contain accurate data and they have prevented the data subjects from updating their personal data. The RIPE NCC also, even as Data Controller, cannot do anything to fix or replace these personal data sets.
If this is data protection issue, I suggest to notice the Dutch Data Protection Authority.
Now I will bring some suggestions to the table to fix this issue. First I would like the RIPE NCC legal team to review this situation and publish to this list their considerations. Secondly I suggest the RIPE NCC unlocks these objects, as it makes no difference to the hijacking situation that you say has been around for years anyway. Third I suggest the RIPE NCC aggressively pursues the members who reference these unmaintained personal objects and pushes them to either maintain them or replace them.
Now, this is something.
Finally I would say that for an issue that the DB WG co-chairs have known to have been around for many years, I don't see why it needed a secret, back room discussion and a sudden announcement that the RIPE NCC has locked a million objects without any community discussion.
As I am not receiving the emails in this discussion from the DB WG mailing list, I think you may have already blocked them. So I have cc'd Athina directly for a legal comment.
Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl