> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Steffann,
>
> I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch
> it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to
> hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you to make it public.
> Why are you tell me that I make an attack? Attack on who? Attack or defend a
> member that was in the cross fire of chairs & friends? Please read all the
> messages and you will see that Ciprian was under attack, he was the one first
> receiving insults and fight back only after.
>
> My answers to your comments are as follows:
>
> - the facts are that Gert got IPs from the last /8 just 2 weeks before he did
> the merger and he also keeps a /22 out of the last /8 for over 2 years
> without being announced. This shows that he got the IPs even if he didn't
> actually need them. This is not against the policies but it’s at least
> immoral.
>
> - he compared actions not people and telling somebody to shut up is a severe
> offence. I saw some do not want to be democratic and civilised but I didn’t
> expect group leaders to support such an authoritarian attitude.
>
> - I understand how the policy works. I don’t understand when open for
> discussion means “praise us and our ideas and shut up if you have anything to
> say against it as we don't care about your opinions"!
>
> I hope I was clear and straight with the explanations of my intervention. I
> have no other reasons than democracy, justice and common sense. I can’t look
> and do nothing when I saw somebody not treated correct because he had a
> different opinion than the leaders.
>
> Best Regards,
> Niculae Plesa
>
>
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 22:27, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Plesa,
>>
>> Replying off-list because I don't want to drag this out any further.
>>
>>> I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in
>>> judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering
>>> to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems
>>> that he raised.
>>
>> What facts? That one of the working group chairs works at an ISP and has
>> merged with another ISP? There was nothing to discuss there, and the
>> baseless allegations made by Ciprian were not worth responding to. Gert
>> kindly responded anyway, and there is nothing more to discuss.
>>
>>> Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody
>>> has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him,
>>> like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks
>>> bullshit and nobody complain about that language!
>>
>> I'm sorry, but calling an argument bullshit vs using very offensive language
>> like calling people Nazi's, comparing people to Hitler etc are in completely
>> different leagues. Telling someone to shut up is not polite, but it's
>> completely understandable after the abhorrent language used by Ciprian.
>>
>>> So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick
>>> together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting
>>> back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost
>>> feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with
>>> cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of
>>> speaking is I N C O R R E C T !
>>
>> Comparing people to Hitler and Nazi's is more than colourful language and
>> figures of speech. Ciprian apparently understood that, as he has publicly
>> apologised.
>>
>> Now, let's discuss policy again, without hateful language, insults and
>> allegations.
>>
>>> I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury
>>> attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions
>>> than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian,
>>> Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up.
>>
>> Don't worry, those voices have been heard.
>>
>>> I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems
>>> of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing
>>> the existing policy.
>>
>> Noted.
>>
>>> By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by
>>> ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the
>>> current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the
>>> policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient
>>> quorum raises a HUGE question mark.
>>
>> It was Ciprian making the attacks. And now you apparently. This end right
>> now. These baseless accusations against proposers and chairs are
>> unacceptable. The company that Gert works for has merged with another
>> company, nothing more. I personally have never sold or bought address space
>> at all. This "business in transferring IPs" of the chairs exists only in
>> your imagination. Stop these allegations.
>>
>> From your comments it is clear that you don't understand how policy
>> development works in RIPE:
>>
>> - someone from the community makes a proposal
>> - the working group chairs have no stake in the proposal
>> - the RIPE Policy Development Process is how we handle such proposals
>> - there are clearly defined discussion and review phases for debate
>> - decision making is based on rough consensus, not "quorum"
>> - there is a proper appeals procedure if you think the chairs have made a
>> wrong decision
>>
>> And that's all.
>> Sander
>>
>
