[ncc-services-wg] Should we have a RIPE archivist?
Piotr Strzyzewski Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Sat Apr 28 14:03:29 CEST 2018
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Gert, > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:20:07PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > I sympathize with this point of view. Saying that NCC should pay for > > something or hire someone to do something while we do have recurring > > discussion about member fees is imho at least careless. > > I totally disagree with this view. Someone will always complain that > the fees are too high (and I might even agree with them, like, for a > non-for-profit, the RIPE NCC member fees *are* high) - but using that > as an argument to stop any sort of investment does not lead anywhere > useful. > > Of course we shouldn't be wasting money carelessly - but spending money > to improve what the NCC is there for (being a secretariat for the > members' benefit) is not automatically "wasting money". While I do understand your point of view, I still keep in mind the ROI point of view (if we treat having archivist on duty as "sort of investment"). I haven't seen any potential benefit (let's keep the "sort of investment" terminology) from keeping formats more consistent (kind of accusation from the original post). And believe me or not - while I was making recently some stats about active members of our assotiation just for last 10 years (1/3 of our history), I was astonished by number of ways the data were provided during those _recent_ years. Been there recently, the same way, I suppose, Shane was. Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland