<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> Dear Tobias! Just because something was presented in fall, does not mean there was an active way to say yes or no to it. Regardless of how you argue it. Sure, there is always the option of remvoing the whole board if you can motivate enough members for it. However it also cant be the case to cause the maximum amount of chaos by throwing out the board anytime there needs to be improvement to a budget... So that option is pure nonsense. If you plan on making the arugment "but in the past members wanted X", this does not mean that members should be prevented from changing their mind on a topic. Or that members may not want something different in the future. >wich direction the members wanted. Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. >no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future. > I see you misunderstood the point. All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member. I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing. <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/24 10:51 AM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:40bfb1278d5bf413a96cd3c8a0f9e93a030befb2.camel@fiebig.nl"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 10:30 +0200, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The point of "ordering the cake" is not applicable. Just ask yourself "when was there a vote, on the draft budget"? ...Over the last few years at least, i belive there was none. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> - Spring meeting: - Adoption of the previous financial report - Discharge of the board - Fall meeting: - Presentation Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget The membership has any possibility to vote for changes to the board or to not dismiss them. We never did. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Did they ask for feedback: Yes, but looking at the feedback from last years vote on the fee shedule, and so on, i do belive it was clear wich direction the members wanted. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Yes, no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I do undestand you feel the need to protect your own interests in this disucussion. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I am curious, what are 'my own interests'? </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">And based on your writing i see that you are trying find new business cases for your LIR ventures. Wich is all fine. But as shown above the cake argument is week. Especially in the context of there being no direct mechanism to adopt/reject a budget by vote. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> I see you misunderstood the point. The point was not me "generating new business cases" for my "LIR ventures", instead it was: "You do not need to pick the RIPE cake. You can get whatever bite you fancy elsewhere." With best regards, Tobias </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>