[members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation

On 3 okt 2011, at 17:31, Erik Bais wrote:

>>> 
>>> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation
>>> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or
>>> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ?
> 
>> Yes. 1521 - 250 = 1271 kEUR.
> 
>> Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to
>> participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the
>> meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss?
>> I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by
>> the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at
>> 2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks.
>> 
>> I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute
>> expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will.
> 
> There is some middle ground here ..
> I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!)
> 
> But by for instance internet access could be provided by sponsoring of some of the local LIRS. Via sponsored data-only sim cards to avoid data-roaming or a temp wifi infrastructure.  And yes, drinks could be (and perhaps even SHOULD be) paid for by the attendees themselves.

As someone who has sponsored several of the socials at RIPE meetings, I just wanted to point out that they are already sponsored and that the sponsorship opportunities tend to be pretty expensive. Admittedly these are for socials, and that one option would be to have sponsorship options for the meetings itself instead. The problem with that is that as a sponsor I then want to make sure I get return on the money in terms of exposure to the attendees instead. So there is a tradeoff. 

That said I am not sure that the subsidized meeting costs is what I would make members pay for first…see below. 

>> On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a
>> part of the training cost.
>> That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for
>> each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for.
>> The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they
>> should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings.
> 
>> Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll buy it.
>> We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical.
> 
> There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for.
> Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate.
> 
> So who would pay for this ? In the end, each LIR would pay for his/her own training. Either you limit it to your own staff within the 2 seats.. or if you have a high rotation of trained people, you will pay a bit more as you consume more seats.
> 
> One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training, is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get the resources due to the way they requested it.
> Some people actually have the idea that if they pay their LIR fee, that they buy resources and get whatever they request. The up-front paid seats in the setup fee is to educate the masses in how the process works.

From what I remember of the results of the membership surveys, training and meetings have been asked for as RIPE activities so this is actually doing what the membership asked for. Part of the problem with the RIPE NCC activity plan is that we actually don't' know much about what we are paying for. Meetings and trainings are broken out so therefor are easy to comment on. DNSMON, RIS, TTM, RIPE Labs, etc are activities where we do not see individual budgets or contributions from the users. Many of these projects are very long running or very new but where there is little discussion on the activity plans on wether the community want it or not. I am all for transparency and I think that a better evaluation process is needed and better reporting on the activities in the activity plan. Then again, when RIPE NCC does the membership surveys - there tend to be surprisingly little feedback. Even on this list there are very, very, very few who voice an opinion. 

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---
Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO
kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00
Franzéngatan 5  | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden






-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20111004/8ad1a514/attachment.sig>