This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Fri Aug 29 19:52:37 CEST 2003
> I've seen this approach. I've also worked at places where the LOI/TDR
> approach was used: the first document ("Letter of Intent") gave a global
> outline of the activity, goals, deadlines, costs, manpower, etc. Only
> when this was approved, a second document ("Technical Design Report") was
> written discussing all the details. I personally believe that this
> approach makes much more sense, why waste time/money to work out details
> _before_ there is consensus that the activity should be persued in the
> first place.
Maybe we should adapt this kind of procedure ?
At some time prior to making the plan LOIs are circulated to the
list/members for support.
When there is sufficient support for the proposal it will be included in
the activity plan
The result would be a RIPE NCC activity plan established trough comunity
consensus rather than the RIPE NCC management proposed activity plan.
-hph
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]