[members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?

> Especially since these fees
> are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their
> companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever
> take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they
> see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost
> no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this?

This, I suppose, comes down to communication.  These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do).

I am very curious to see how this would work out, and I am also intrigued by the earlier suggestion of a 'contribution level' scheme.

I have a few concerns about year-on-year classification, and whether this will end up being used as another method for a vote on what the NCC is doing.  I also wonder if there will be an annual round of finger-pointing over membership levels, and I have some concerns about the wording of the phrases around legacy resource holders.

Notwithstanding those, I like simple things, and pending some more discussion with my colleagues, I think I'd support this scheme.

Rob