Hi,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:10:37AM +0200, h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare
consensus if there are still people disagree
I can. And we have in the past.
We prefer if people can be convinced to, at least, give up their
What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections
against the proposal have been properly considered.
how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed.
it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but
through the DoS and ad homina,
Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree
i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding
the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
randy
you may also find
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WGChairTraining/rtgwg_train_2.pdf
useful
I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass.
from what i understand, discussion of this proposal has already closed.
i was traveling, so came on a week of (so called)
Hi randy:
I have read this, and I also know I might not as experience as you. Let me put
it again:
Chair can not declare consensus if there are still Many people disagree.(real
or fake that's another topic).
But we need to find ways to close the loop, just I didn't see this PDP process
Hi randy:
I agree with you it seems too obvious to not understand what is going on.
But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus
if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of
them), however if such consensus is not declared this
Hi,
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding
integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this
proposal so that neutrality is given.
Indeed. I am staying out of this discussion and I will limit myself to judging
on consensus or not. I admit
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger sebast...@karotte.org
wrote:
* Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do.
Hi Lu, and all others,
you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand and
in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling better
now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could have as
purpose.
All on the list, please stop
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.
secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one
of the Chair.
While my company information and false
* Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not
On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
No, I am not questioning his integrity,
So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are*
questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.]
This thread serves no useful
A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and
hide his personal preference while making calls.
Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on
fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions,
you can not say I am
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52:49PM +0200, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think
you and Sander are doing a good job!
I certainly hope to spur a good discussion by having people *not* agree
with me :-) - but thanks for the
Enough,
i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye,
the other option would be to generate a spam filter.
Raymond unsubscribing?
I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to
reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am
making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my
rights to do so.
According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to
appeal a
Hi Gert and rest of the list:
I will stop posting and I believe all my points has been made. I will
expect answer from WGCC and Chair of Ripe for the outcome of this appeal.
Let's go back to the policy.
(And apologised to anyone feel disturbed, because it was really not first
time me and my
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +, David Freedman wrote:
i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants,
goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter.
Raymond unsubscribing?
Raymond, please do not!
I would welcome some intervention from
Hi Sascha:
Thanks for the link.
Yes, please consider appeal has been made, and I will expect responds from
WGCC and Chair of Ripe.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Same here, I feel
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote:
On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
No, I am not questioning his integrity,
So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you
*are* questioning someone's integrity, but
20 matches
Mail list logo
