RE: [lir-wg] New question
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:09:37 -0000
Daniel,
> Would you care explain why?
For the simple reason to improve cost control. If the meetings
were self financing, in my view, there would be much
better management of the costs of the meeting. Also, I don't
see why organisations should subsidise these meetings when
they have no real way to participate remotely.
The RIPE meetings have over grown to a fairly rediculous size
[5 days!] and I don't see any additional benefits because of
this, had the attendees had to finance this perhaps the meeting
would not have grown to the size it has and the focus would be
much sharper. Because of the structure of IP addressing etc
the RIPE NCC has a responsibility to its members to ensure
good value for money and to focus on things that are relevant to
the RIPE NCC. I sense a large amount of "mission creep" where the
RIPE has become involved in things that are not really relevant
to the RIPE NCC or the reason why many of the members joined, however
the members are expected to fund it - where does it stop?
I'm not arguing that the RIPE and the RIPE NCC do good work, I'm
arguing for more accountability. The RIPE NCC meeting for example
needs at most to be two days IMO and for most members attending
a two day meeting to cover the specific RIPE NCC functions is far
more justifiable than a 5 day meeting.
Regards,
Neil.
