[lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion)
Wed Dec 4 11:39:04 CET 2002
[Again personal remarks from an old hand. Do not sue the NCC, and do not sue me either ;-) ] I guess I was too terse. Expanding a bit: The number of participants in RIPE NCC AGMs is small because the vast majority of the members does not see the need to participate. If the RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, participation would be higher and this would be corrected. I do not consider any of the other reasons suggested here for the low level of participation in AGMs to be valid. There is no obscurity about the meetings, they are every year around the same time and they are announced well. The agenda, all proposals and associated documents are published well in advance. Only someone who has not taken the time to actually read the material can compare it to stuff from the Euro bureaucrazy. Also the content of the most important document, the Activity Plan, is developed with considerable input and interaction with RIPE. RIPE is open to participation from anyone. I agree with Nigel that this set-up opens opportunities for capture by a small and organised group. However the implementation is such that this cannot happen all at once and it has to happen in public. Again, if it is against most member's interests, they will attend the next meeting and put things right. The reason AGMs are not co-scheduled with RIPE meetings is mainly practical and somewhat historical. The AGMs need the audited accounts published well in advance and that schedule does not fit the traditional RIPE meeting schedule. Also the sets of people attending both meetings used to be fairly discjunct, with notable exceptions. I am all in favour of re-evaluating design and implementation: Resurrect the AGM mailing list? Should AGMs be scheduled along RIPE meetings? Maybe they can as we are working with the register accountants to get audited accounts earlier in the year. Are the people attending also attending RIPE meetings? Should we have electronic voting for board elections? Such improvements should be discussed, always keeping in mind stability and trying hard not to break a running system. However I take serious issue with people asserting that the current design and implementation are fundamentally flawed. They are not! Daniel --------- For full details see "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC: De Facto Organisational Rules". http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-161.html. I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is one of the docs explicitly written to be straight and to the point explaining the design principles and intentions, omitting the legalese that is necessary for implementation. Contrary to what some people have suggested here, this is the way we do things at the RIPE NCC.
[ lir-wg Archive ]