CAll for action - PLEASE READ
Tanja Heimes theimes at de.cw.net
Fri Apr 12 15:18:33 CEST 2002
Hi All, I completely agree with Stephens mail. The long queue time is seriously affecting my workflow. Tanja Heimes Per Lundberg wrote: > > Hi Stephen et al, > > I fully support your view and the items you pointed out, and are quite > curious on the NCC's reply. > > /Per > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote: > > > Hi > > Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest > > just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone > > should care about our community. > > Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but > > excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will > > get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general > > those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our > > community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in > > no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC. > > > > RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the > > BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large. > > RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect > > the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which > > enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the > > task at hand. > > > > So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx? > > How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing, > > what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be > > trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a > > competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC > > staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never > > lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem > > is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when > > needed to help with increased work loads. > > Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable > > level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in > > the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the > > current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we > > have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is > > unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a > > standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list > > only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for > > the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a > > week or more. > > So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the > > pitiful turnaround times: > > > > 1. Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three > > months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001. > > > > I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen > > why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped > > growing or had that escaped managements notice ;) > > > > 2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than > > doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers > > involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next > > RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam). > > > > And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community - > > bad management! > > > > 3. Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy > > implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our > > New-LIR Co-ordinators. > > > > Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it > > would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on > > the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for > > it. > > > > They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from > > excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if > > firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising. > > The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are > > not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If > > management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble. > > If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I > > am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been > > done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts. > > > > To summarise: > > A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue. > > B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +. > > C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2 > > fundamental truths stated at the start of this email. > > D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow > > process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking > > and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid > > by the NCC this time. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple > > naryreport/sld012.html > > > > This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to > > the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance > > this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look > > at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN > > had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action. > > Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the > > registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been > > side tracked. > > > > Lets get this one solved once and for all time!! > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Stephen Burley > > WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster > > SB855-RIPE > > > > > > -- > Vänligen > Per > DNS/IP Registry > - - - - - - - - - Swedish IP Network - - - - - - - - - > Tele2AB/Swipnet e-mail: per at swip.net > Box 62 direct: +46 8 5626 4579 > 164 94 KISTA gsm: +46 704 26 4579 > Sweden fax: +46 8 5626 4210 -- Tanja Heimes / IP Engineer E-Mail Tanja.Heimes at de.cw.com Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de
[ lir-wg Archives ]