[members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation

Hi Alexey,

>> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation
>> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or
>> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ?

>Yes. 1521 - 250 = 1271 kEUR.

>Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to
>participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the
>meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss?
>I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by
>the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at
>2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks.
>
>I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute
>expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will.

There is some middle ground here ..
I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!)

But by for instance internet access could be provided by sponsoring of some of the local LIRS. Via sponsored data-only sim cards to avoid data-roaming or a temp wifi infrastructure.  And yes, drinks could be (and perhaps even SHOULD be) paid for by the attendees themselves.

>On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a
>part of the training cost.
>That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for
>each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for.
>The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they
>should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings.

>Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll buy it.
>We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical.

There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for.
Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate.

So who would pay for this ? In the end, each LIR would pay for his/her own training. Either you limit it to your own staff within the 2 seats.. or if you have a high rotation of trained people, you will pay a bit more as you consume more seats.

One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training, is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get the resources due to the way they requested it.
Some people actually have the idea that if they pay their LIR fee, that they buy resources and get whatever they request. The up-front paid seats in the setup fee is to educate the masses in how the process works.

Erik

PS. Can someone kill the auto-responding ticket systems that are on this list.. I have about 25 outstanding tickets atm because of my blabbering today :)