On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Opteamax GmbH <ripe@opteamax.de> wrote:
Sascha,
On 10.06.2015 13:54, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? Sometimes there is more than one.
The end-result which is the outcome of the proposal
You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere I wish to go back to.
The proposal itself, before being presented to the mailinglist already has a history. One/Some people already spent quiet some time thinking about something which currently is not working and finding a way to make things better. They write down a documentation how they want to enhance the current policy. So saying "I understand what your arguments for a change are and feel that it is a good idea to adjust the policy as you described" (or shorthand: +1) imho *is* different then simply saying "what you write is bullshit".
Actually each argumentation is starting with one side presenting their working hypothesis with a description on why and how they come to it and looking for supporters. It's the other side who needs to *explain* what is not ok with that hypothesis and why they speak *against* it, at that point. Because the reasoning *for* that hypothesis already exists.
And, case in point: +1 -- Jan