On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
At 01:09 03/11/2013 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
This and the lack of quid-pro-quo are the two main reasons why this proposal is critically flawed and why it should not become RIPE community policy in its current form.
Nick
About 15 people stated their support for 2012-07 in this forum so for me as one of the authors I see this as consensus. Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree - just that most people need to agree. As I see it, most people agree.
I think your view on Consensus are a bit of with what alot of us other think, please go read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/ Or a shorter answer, it's not about the number, it is about getting people to agree it is a doable solution even when they don't agree on all. Their biggest objections need to be addressed, and discussed. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no