<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> the "accepted by RIPE NCC members" is a really sore point for many from the looks. As far as this discussion has revealed: - the activity plan is put forward by the Board, with no mechanism to influence it directly. Certainly members may provide imputs or as some may have have called it during this discussion - complain, or put forward suggestions, but there is no direct mechanism for control, other than removing the board (wich really does not improve that situation, or anything related to stability). So the timing on this should not matter. There is no "official period" anyway. - As far as i can tell the Activity plan was never voted on. (feel free to correct me and link me to when the vote took place). - The activity plan also does not dictate how the charging should work. So i do not see why we cannot have a discussion about keeping fee levels the same and reducing reserves, or having a more differentiated charging scheme based on resources, tickets, or whatever other metric. Futhermore weather we regard this as "the wrong tree", i think 700 members taking the time to sign any type of petition should show that some things need to be re-evaluated and disucssed now, other than deferring to a later point. What i would also like to see (but sadly do not have the time to do) is count the number of unique member-addresses arguing for/against any charging scheme and/or activity plan in this discussion. How many where in favor, how many against? Just so that we have some numbers to go with this as well. I would also like to note that a productive conversation should always be able to take place. So as a sidenote i am actually quite surprised to find that people are trying to unsubscribe other members from the mailing list. After the last post i recieved until sending this response a couple of minutes later), 3 emails showing that someone tried to unsubscribe me from the list. Offending IP-Address: 185.162.48.60 Regards <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/16/24 2:48 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:fb5fd5e7-939b-4eb5-ac89-071cc452a81d@go6.si"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 16. 5. 24 14:33, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">"put something forward"... Many members have put forward potential schemes on this list. Many members have put forward and voted for a point to be added to the agenda regarding the charging scheme (checking, this proposal has more than 700 signatures to date). To wich the boards reaction was basically them not adding any options based on feedback.... Then when people appear to be complaing about that </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This has been repeated for the n-th time already. EB can't put an option of a lower budget (and members fee) on the agenda as they need to follow the (accepted by RIPE NCC members) activity plan and assure the budget for it. Period. At this point lower budget is not possible. You are all barking at the wrong tree. When the activity plan comes into a discussion at (and prior to the GM) - that's the time to start proposing changes if you really want them. Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-members%40sebastian-graf.at">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-members%40sebastian-graf.at</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>