I am glad to hear that and of course that’s the case. But then I’m getting called out for “encouraging” consensus, to the point where it invites application of Godwin’s law, by crowding the room with people in support of the proposal, if I call for participation from organisations’ abuse teams. 

I keep getting the sense of a long running old closed club where anything above packet pushing and dns aren’t quite operational and just barely tolerated / mostly ignored for the most part.

--srs

From: Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 12:21 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Suresh,

> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people
> in their organizations that handle abuse issues.

As I'm sure you're aware, the RIPE working groups are open to all
(regardless of any organisation's membership of the RIPE NCC or not,
or location in the traditional service area of the RIPE NCC), and I
would expect the Anti-Abuse Working Group to have reasonable
representation from those dealing with abuse issues.

I don't wish to speak for the co-chairs, but if those people aren't
represented I am sure they'd be welcome to take part in the working
group!

Equally, people working in dealing with abuse issues are welcome to
contribute to discussions on routing, networking, and re-soling shoes.

Cheers,
Rob