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.