[ncc-services-wg] Re: [local-ir at ripe.net]RIPE 47 Meeting Report

Paul,

> I remember being at the RIPE47 meeting where this was 
> announced as a fait 
> accompli.  What I don't remember was the RIPE47 meeting where 
> there was any 
> real debate or discussion about it.

Hence why we have this issue! 

> On the subject of meetings, it is accepted that mailing list 
> discussions 
> are moved forwards rapidly at the meetings, as we have a 
> chance to discuss 
> things face to face in working groups which in general leads 
> to more rapid 
> conclusion of policy decisions.
> If we have a new operating method where there are two 'major' 
> RIPE meetings 
> a year, and some 'lesser' committee meetings for the working 
> groups, do we 
> end up with people who have an interest now having to travel 
> to all of the 
> meetings rather than just the current RIPE meetings to ensure that 
> something they care about is not being discussed without them present?

I don't think this is always the case. Travel isn't always required
for meetings, conference calls could be used to deal with many of
the issues that are resolved face to face.

> 
> So in short, I'm not at all convinced that two meetings a 
> year is a Good 
> Thing, nor am I particularly happy about the way it has been 
> introduced.

Well to me this sounds like a fudge also. I think 1
meeting per quarter is more than adequate but the length
of the current RIPE meeting is frankly insane and there
is absolutely no reason for the meeting to be as long as 
it is. The fundemental issue still remains. There are still
too many random projects with questionable value going
on within the "RIPE".

Regards,
Neil.