[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members

Alex Le Heux wrote on 07/05/2024 16:56:
> What’s happening here is something else though: Some loud folks are
> demanding a particular charging scheme while not having any concrete
> proposals about how to reduce expenses.
compounding this, many of the ideas being floated on members-discuss 
about charging schemes are coming up short on having a well-defined 
strategic basis.

The current charging scheme was introduced in 2013 on the basis of a set 
of recommendations put together by a member-based task force, who 
produced a policy document setting out strategic principles for what a 
charging scheme should look like.

These principles were then used to build candidate charging schemes. The 
RIPE NCC membership was presented with options at a GM, and they voted 
in a flat-rate charging scheme. The vote passed by an overall majority, 
but there were plenty of people who voted against.

Like today, some people at the time were vociferously pro- or con-, but 
the process to change the charging scheme was done in consultation with 
the membership and it was solid enough to last 11 years.

Asking for reassessment after 11 years is legitimate, but just because 
this reassessment hasn't happened immediately, that doesn't mean that 
the exec board is ignoring the membership.  It looks like the opposite 
is the case: the current scheme is the output of a membership based 
process; the message about changing this approach has clearly been 
heard; and even though the demands for a non flat-rate charging scheme 
run directly contrary to what the membership voted in the 2023 GM (which 
was used as an input for options in the 2024 budget), a commitment has 
been made to reassess this approach. Overall, this seems like a pretty 
reasonable approach for the exec board to take.

I would hope, and expect, that the process to re-assess what style of 
charging scheme to adopt will start with a statement of principles + 
analysis, which would then be used to work towards concrete proposals 
which can then be put to a member vote. Starting out with solutions on 
the members-discuss mailing list is no good unless we understand what 
set of problems these solutions are expected to fix.

Nick