Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
owen at delong.com
Tue Jul 25 21:22:04 UTC 2017
> On Jul 25, 2017, at 02:59 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2017 9:56 a.m., "David Hilario" <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>> wrote:
> Hi Noah,
> > Jackson
> > Thank you for pointing that out as Owen has this tendency of opposing
> > everything.
> Stating opinions with arguments for or against is not the same as
> opposing everything, and I cannot recall him doing any such things
> Yes you do not recall. But I recall and Owen's stand on softlanding proposals is crystal clear. He is the chief opposer. Go back to the archives.
He didn’t say I don’t consistently oppose soft-landing proposals. You, however, claimed that I oppose everything. Soft landing is not the same as everything.
Yes, I oppose soft landing proposals because they are fundamentally flawed and I believe that extending the life of IPv4 artificially for some by denying it to others, especially in the case of holding it for unknown future users to the detriment of those with immediate and present need is both bad resource management and also fosters an errant perception that an extended life for IPv4 is possible and therefore there is no need to implement IPv6 or that delaying IPv6 implementation is harmless and risk free.
Yes, I oppose the current version of the resource review proposal for reasons I have stated in that thread.
However, if you go further back in the record, you will find a mixture of support for some and opposition to other proposals throughout my history on this list.
Therefore, the claim that I simply oppose everything is, in fact, specious as David suggested.
I do find it interesting that amidst all of the opposition to Soft Landing proposals, you have chosen to promote me to chief opposer (is that a real title?)
I’m not sure what gives you the power to appoint me to such a position, but I suppose if there needs to be one, then I am perfectly willing to fulfill the role as required in the face of such a fundamentally bad proposal.
> If one has a sustained valid objection, why should it be ignored and
> consensus declared?
> Like what sustained objection?
I have restated some of them above for your convenience. Since you are so familiar with my opposition in the archives, feel free to review those for additional information on this subject.
> Do you mean those counter policies that were withdrawn or what?
A competing similar proposal (which is what was withdrawn) is not the same thing as a counter-policy.
Further, that proposal was withdrawn as a good-faith gesture in light of community feedback and an agreement by the authors of both proposals to withdraw both proposals and possibly work on submitting a consolidated draft proposal for community review. The fact that the proposal authors here acted in bad faith and did not honor that agreement really doesn’t seem like the best argument in favor of this proposal, but keep trying to make it so, perhaps you will succeed somehow.
> Do you mean suggestions made towards softlanding-BIS.?
While you have chosen to appoint me “chief opposer”, there has been other opposition to softlanding-BIS and it has also been (IMHO) based on sustained and valid objections.
> There is a tendency to call for and to actually ignore anyone opposing
> certain views, this is absolutely wrong.
> Show me the evidence of this tendency.
The fact that there was even a last call on Resource Review would certainly support this conclusion.
> > He keeps denying supports all times and behaving as he has authority to
> > decide.
> I didn't perceive it that way, he does state the facts and indeed
> reminds certain community members of what the bottom up process is all
> Yes Owen does have good ideas sometimes but most of the time he just opposes. This is my subjective view, so please note.
Your subjective view is noted. So is its near total lack of objective accuracy.
> We really should not allow mob rule to take over, even if people call for it.
> Which mob rule are you talking about?
When people start suggesting that those speaking in opposition to their position should “shut up and let the chairs do their job”, that certainly begins to take on the appearance of mob rule. When people are ruled out of order in policy meetings and asked to cede the microphone, but refuse, that is a sign that things are progressing towards mob rule. I’m sure if you try to take an objective look around you will be able to find other examples in recent history.
> Can we stop harassing anyone who opposes ones view?
> Stating why one opposes something is enough, without having to start
> attacking people personally.
> Who has harrased anyone. Calling out someone is totally fine. Owen can call me out anytime and I wont call it harrasment.
Actually, not so much. If you believe I have violated the AfriNIC code of conduct or that my comments are not germane to the discussion, perhaps. However, making personal attacks against people just because you don’t agree with them is specifically prohibited in the AfriNIC code of conduct:
to wit: Bullet 3: “Personal attacks or otherwise defamatory or discriminatory comments will not be tolerated.”
> Bottom up process and consensus MUST be defended and left in place att all time.
> There is an agreed and documented process, there are WG-chairs, they
> can respond when addressed and given they have time.
> Ack and that is what I was telling Owen. Let WG-Chairs do play their part rather than him stating the following in ref: to co-chairs. " This should, indeed, be an interesting response.”
I commented that I felt the co-chairs answer to the question at hand would be interesting. Please explain how this interferes with them? Please explain how it even indicates a desire for them to rule in any particular way (which, btw, is a perfectly valid thing to do as the entire point of the RPD list is to share opinions and discuss desired outcomes and merits of policy proposals.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD