[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

[Owen DeLong]

Everyone is free to contribute, but we’d like to know who you are so we can put your remarks in context and also to have some assurance that multiple identities aren’t a bunch of sock puppets commenting on behalf of a single author.

I hope you can understand. No intention (at least on my part) of discounting your remarks. I don’t even discount remarks from those who oppose my position, let alone those supporting it, but I do like to know who I am debating or agreeing with.

Owen


> On Dec 2, 2018, at 08:04 , 1mgirlieadezpet at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Please I stand to be corrected but I believe that the mailing list is a neutral platform where "everyone" is "free" to contribute. Does this mean that the level of importance or relevance attached to views and opinions will now be judged based on "identity"?
> 
> Please find attached. 
> 
> Adepetun Oluwaseun .I.
> System Administrator/Analyst
> EPETUKU TECHNOLOGIES
> Abuja, Nigeria.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa
> <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng> wrote:
> Hello,
> Is it possible for you to attach your identity to this and future email to the RPD list?
> 
> Ti</>
> 
> On 2 Dec 2018 1:54 PM, "1mgirlieadezpet at gmail.com <mailto:1mgirlieadezpet at gmail.com>" <1mgirlieadezpet at gmail.com <mailto:1mgirlieadezpet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I have been following up closely as events have been unfolding. I can easily deduce that the authors of this policy have clearly shown little to no regard for the opinion of the community.
> 
> I mean, why would they still present and try to impose the exact same papers/documents that majority of the participants were vehemently opposed to at the last meeting in Dakar? We all are well aware that the RSA has addressed this policy.
> 
> Why would they call for contributions from the community when it is now obvious that their clear intent was to disregard anyway?
>  
> Why push a policy rejected by the community to the last call stage when no positive consensus has been agreed upon? The community should have been informed to stay completely out of the development process since a few number of us have decided to monopolize and impose certain policies with or without the acceptance of the majority.
> 
> I still want to give the chairs and co-chairs a benefit of the doubt. I want to believe this is an error so I will like for them to revert and do the needful ASAP as this will eventually result in lack of trust in their capacity.
> 
> To the authors, there are better ways to address a situation such as this. Antagonism/ aggression and/or intimidation is clearly not the right way.
> 
> Warmest regards.
> Graceful
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Mark Elkins
> <mje at posix.co.za <mailto:mje at posix.co.za>> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181202/60c51e75/attachment.html>