|
|
 |
Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:49:16 +0200
You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but
you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on
the mailinglists.
And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored.
If you are alone - yes. From the discussions from the vinter/spring
from what I can remember you where far from ignored.
I am not alone in making
these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the
RIPE
membership fees are *mine* and I don't really care about being
ridiculed for
talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public.
I don't see anyone ridiculing you. I see people disagreeing with you.
They are in their full right to do so.
You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think.
No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the
projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can
not have the decision right as that is with the AGM.
Why not ? The AGM should be a rubber stamp occasion where the
"consensus"
arrived at either on mailing lists on through online voting is
approved for
legal reasons. Come on, why not ? Your turn to answer a question
instead of
answering with another question.
Read what I write above. I have no problem with the WG discussing the
activities of the NCC. However the WG is open to _anyone_, not just NCC
membership.
I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the
KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was
the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can
comment on this...
I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide
better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come.
I think a more often KPMG like survey is more of value than forcing the
RIPE NCC management and staff live under quarterly stability. That is
how large listed companies operates. I think the NCC have a bit to
before being there...
- kurtis -
|
|
|
|
