Hi Elvis I will only make 3 comments just to put the record straight. On 12/03/2016 06:55, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
I see you are sending dozens of e-mails trying to impose your view on how the RIPE Database model should work..
Whilst commenting on other things I often point out that the old data model is one of the factors. I have not even offered any views as yet on how it should/could work....I simply asked for a professional discussion on the data model "to see" IF it could be improved.
Maybe you are right, maybe things should be done differently. Just come up with a policy proposal instead of making so much noise on the mailing list.
Changing the data model is not a policy issue and needs to start with technical brainstorming sessions by people with open minds.
But maybe you are wrong, and you should also try to take a step back when you see that the others do not agree with you.
And that is the issue. No one disagrees with me! But only one person (on these lists) agrees with me. So in theory that should be a consensus for moving forward. But generally every time I mention the data model my comments are totally ignored. People reply to my other comments in emails and often physically cut out the reference to the data model so it does not get perpetuated in any discussion. This is clear and preserved in the mailing list archives. So it is not possible to have an 'open and transparent' discussion on an important technical subject for the registry. Simplifying the data model benefits new members more than the people on these lists. The only thing I see is that it is obvious the people on these lists are not interested in even discussing the topic. Professional courtesy would mean some people would at least state their objection to even discussing this topic, even if it is "leave it alone, 'we' don't want it changed, it is of no benefit to us and we don't care about the wider community". It is not possible to have an open discussion on these lists if you hit a topic they don't want to talk about. I don't think there is any point having this discussion now on these lists. The silence is clear what their views are. I am looking at other avenues to raise this subject, away from these lists. My last comment on the topic...for now... cheers denis
You are talking about the 'very small, unrepresentative group of people on these mailing lists'. Well, these are the people that want to voice their opinion. The others can not be bothered to comment or participate in these processes, they gladly accept what is decided on behalf of them by this 'small group'.
cheers denis
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> *To:* ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk *Cc:* Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>; "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 March 2016, 2:53 *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.
Denis, how do you know how much data I input in the RIPE Database? You are making assumptions based on a very poor (pun intended) understanding on what I do.
I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis expressed his opinion on my implementation :)
your opinion was of elvis not his position. this is called ad homina, which you seem to repeat
and repeat, and repeat, and repeat....
let's stop this nonsense and talk about what is really important at this moment. Should abuse-c be mandatory, optional, or not at all in the legacy resource objects? I already said above that I do support this policy proposal but I would like to see it implemented differently, even if that means that the RIPE NCC may need to change the way abuse-c was implemented initially.
cheers, elvis