[ncc-services-wg] reviewing and developing requirements for NCC services

On 5 Sep 2009, at 08:43, Daniel Suchy wrote:

> Of course, nobody will do micro-management of every detail. But on
> important tools - and LIR portal is important tool, there should be  
> some
> interaction between RIPE NCC and members about changes, implementation
> of new features and member requirements.

Well I look forward to you making suggestions on how this can be done.  
As I said before, there should be a role for this WG in developing/ 
discussing requirements, reviewing progress and so on.

> But this doesn't mean, that the only activity of member is voting on
> general/wg meetings among few-page general documents. These materials
> are obviously targeted to (top) managers. Members should have detailed
> informations easily available, if they're interested. It's about
> transparency of operation, nothing else.

There's a balance here Daniel. Of course the NCC could publish  
everything. But I very much doubt this will actually help: who'd have  
the time or inclination to read all of that stuff? All of us have day  
jobs. :-) It would very probably lead to the sort of LIR micro- 
management by mailing list or organisational paralysis that we agree  
is undesirable. At the very least, I'd expect members to complain  
about money being wasted pumping out so much unwanted and unread detail.

Broadly speaking the current level of detail is just about right IMO.  
If members generally wanted more information I'm sure they would have  
asked for that and more detail would be forthcoming. That doesn't mean  
more information can't be provided. And if there were regular or  
repeated requests for more detailed reports from the NCC, they would  
pretty soon be getting published as a matter of routine. Over to you  
and the rest of the membership....

So rather than go on here about how the NCC or this WG should/could do  
A or B, which is all very well in theory, how about turning that into  
practical suggestions or requests? For instance, you say you want  
members to have some input into requirements for the LIR portal. Fine.  
Please make some suggestions about how that discussion could be done.  
Better still, suggest a process for that so this WG has got something  
to consider instead of trying to deal with this in the abstract. We  
seem to be going round in circles here.

> But significant development expenses should be covered and stated.

Perhaps. Assuming there's consensus on what's meant by significant.  
FWIW the NCC chairman said at the May AGM that adding e-voting to the  
LIR portal was estimated to cost €150K. Is that significant? It's  
around 1% of the annual turnover.

> Again - we can start with general member surveys. I thing, that not so
> much members watch activities in WGs, but they can give valuable  
> feedback.
> If there are plans for development of new features (or review  
> existing),
> we can simply ask members, if they're seeing particular feature  
> helpful.
> Who's interested, will ansver here.

I'm not sure member surveys are the answer here. Or that only the  
interested will respond. Still, it's worth trying...

The sort of thing I had in mind was a simplified and lightweight  
version of the PDP. A proposal for a new project or service emerges  
somehow. A draft requirements document is produced. It gets discussed  
and refined on this list. When the Chairs of this WG declare  
consensus, the proposal goes forward the NCC to implementation after  
getting board approval.

> Voting on AGM its locked to be on-site at this time, this requires
> traveling (mainly) around the Europe, this is a big barrier. According
> to Axel Pawlik presentation on last AGM, there never voted more than  
> 5%
> of members on-site. This isn't really representative.

Indeed. This is a concern and something is being done about it. The  
intention is to have an e-voting system in place for the 2010 AGM.  
Provided the membership reaches consensus and approves a scheme.