On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > On 06/02/14 16:04, Dick Visser wrote: >> I know there are different opinions on this. >> But between black and white there are many shades of grey. > > Maybe. But this phrase: > > "If turning IPv4 off results in inability to perform our job for our > employers, we tell them the reason and take a day off." > > ...does not send a good message. I would be inclined to tell the member > of staff to get their a**e into work and stop acting like such a child. >
Last time I checked, anyone with available days off can take them at any time for any reason. > > If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is that individuals > will disable IPv4 for a day, on their own personal equipment or > workstations. > > If so: > > 1. That *might* be useful, but it's unclear to me why having a "day" That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others' networks nor to have the innocent users suffer. > for this is helpful; the purpose of IPv6 day #1 and #2 was to coordinate > the enabling for people who *didn't* opt in, so that any impact would > have an obvious cause. If an individual wants to do this, they can do it > at any time and see the effects. Having a defined day when others are doing the same thing makes it easier to allocate the time for it, at least for some. > > 2. The wording needs to be improved, drastically. It has a very > care-free tone to it, which is not helpful to the overall efforts. If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast. > > IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout > broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK). > What would that effort consist of ? --a