[ncc-services-wg] Independent Resource procedure and implementation

On 09/04/2009 09:08 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> For many younger LIRs, the data might be perfectly accurate, but it's
> much less effort for everybody if the RIPE NCC just gives every LIR 
> the opportunity to say "this is ours, this is not ours" first (which
> takes 10 minute per LIR) - and *then* the real work for the NCC starts,
> finding out what to do about all the resources that are tagged as
> "not ours".
> 
> I think it would be a waste of our money if the NCC would hire 20 extra
> staff members to sort out through all these details for 5000 LIRs if
> it can be done with a 10-minute effort at every individual LIR.

But RIPE NCC is wasting our money already and nobody really cares. For
simple web form, with one submit button and few radio buttons they
developed totally NEW application residing outside of everything else.
This also costs money, of course. And there only somebody at RIPE NCC
decided to develop this new tool instead of much easier and more cost
effective implementation of new form into existing portal.

If we're talking about money, there should be published detailed
development plans for LIR portal and such tools. We should know, where
our money are spent. In activity plan (RIPE-439,426), there's no
statement about upgrade plans for LIR portal like total code rewrite
mentioned by Andrea Cima from RIPE yesterday. I can imagine many new
feature requests, for example ability to view details of own tickets
(not only headers) on portal. There should be wide analysis BEFORE real
development starts. RIPE NCC spams about every insignificant event, but
I don't remember any global email from RIPE NCC asking members for some
feature requests for this very important tool. The process is wrong in
general...

RIPE NCC has around 100 full-time employees already. It's not a little
number, 55% of RIPE NCC incomes are spent in these people. We should
know, what are these people really doing, if anybody mentions things
like "we need more people for something". This is not a little number of
 employees.