[members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation
Hank Nussbacher hank at efes.iucc.ac.il
Tue Oct 4 10:03:45 CEST 2011
At 08:47 04/10/2011 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >That said I am not sure that the subsidized meeting costs is what I would >make members pay for first see below. RIPE often sends out extensive surveys to all the LIRs. It would be nice if the next survey were to ask questions like "I am in favor of subsidized meeting costs". This way, if the majority vote in favor then the meetings should be subsidized. > > 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. Next survey questions: "I am in favor of RIPE funding costs for regional training sessions" or "LIRs should totally fund all costs of their training sessions with RIPE" > > > > 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. If I remember correctly, the surveys never worded the questions in regards to costs but rather "I am in favor of RIPE doing regional training" or "I am in favor of RIPE doing IP research". This needs to corrected for the next survey. >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. +1. How many people are doing research (RIPE Labs)? What is the budget? Who decides what is needed? Has the membership asked (and paid for) for RIPEstat Mobile or Data Repository ? How many LIRs use these resources? If 100 LIRs use the resource - it is worth the investment. If 15 use the resource - it should be terminated. >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. Transparency = +1. That means reports and excels produced by RIPE. Regards, Hank >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 > > > > > > > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses.