[lir-wg] New question
Neil J. McRae neil at COLT.NET
Thu Dec 5 10:09:37 CET 2002
Daniel, > Would you care explain why? For the simple reason to improve cost control. If the meetings were self financing, in my view, there would be much better management of the costs of the meeting. Also, I don't see why organisations should subsidise these meetings when they have no real way to participate remotely. The RIPE meetings have over grown to a fairly rediculous size [5 days!] and I don't see any additional benefits because of this, had the attendees had to finance this perhaps the meeting would not have grown to the size it has and the focus would be much sharper. Because of the structure of IP addressing etc the RIPE NCC has a responsibility to its members to ensure good value for money and to focus on things that are relevant to the RIPE NCC. I sense a large amount of "mission creep" where the RIPE has become involved in things that are not really relevant to the RIPE NCC or the reason why many of the members joined, however the members are expected to fund it - where does it stop? I'm not arguing that the RIPE and the RIPE NCC do good work, I'm arguing for more accountability. The RIPE NCC meeting for example needs at most to be two days IMO and for most members attending a two day meeting to cover the specific RIPE NCC functions is far more justifiable than a 5 day meeting. Regards, Neil.
[ lir-wg Archives ]