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

>> 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.

"so say we all."  well, some of us :)

do you suggest the task force based approach again?

randy