[ncc-services-wg] reviewing and developing requirements for NCC services

On 4 Sep 2009, at 09:59, Daniel Suchy wrote:

> But RIPE NCC is wasting our money already and nobody really cares.

I'm not sure either of these things is true.

You're complaining about the costs of this new functionality (both to  
the LIR and at the NCC). And there have been a few postings on the  
thread you started. So at least someone cares. :-)

It does appear that the revamped LIR portal missed features that would  
have make life better for the members. Which is a pity. But IMO it's a  
bit of a jump to go from that to saying the work on the new portal is  
a waste of money. Yes, some things could and should have been done  
differently. Some NCC resources will not have been utilised perfectly.  
So the focus should now be on how to do better next time.

> 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.

Of course members are entitled to decide how their money is spent and  
know how that money is spent.

However there are limitations. It's utterly impractical for the  
membership to micro-manage every aspect of the NCC's activities. Which  
presupposes the membership has the time and interest to do that.  
Imagine if the membership had to debate how much the NCC pays for a  
plane ticket or who supplies its paperclips or which model and  
configuration of routers it should buy. Can you imagine how difficult  
it would be for the membership to reach consensus on these things at  
that level of detail? If you accept the principle that decisions about  
implementation matters have to be delegated, the question becomes one  
of deciding where these delegation points are and what happens at them.

There is a reasonably clear chain of authority/control here. The  
membership decides the NCC's overall strategy by voting on the annual  
activity plan and charging scheme (which of course determines the  
overall budget). They also elect the NCC board. The board delegate the  
actual running of the NCC to the management, particularly the CEO, and  
direct them to carry out the tasks in the activity plan. The board  
does not get directly involved in operational matters. The NCC's  
executive uses its expertise to manage the organisation's resources to  
deliver the services that the membership have asked for. The output  
from this WG helps shape the activity plan.

> 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.

IMO the information in 1.4.2 of the current activity plan covers the  
operation of the LIR portal in appropriate level of detail. This says  
what the LIR portal does and what its goals are. Within reason, it  
shouldn't matter to the membership how the NCC actually implements  
that portal. Of course if someone does have questions about those  
internal details, they can ask and will get answers. For instance if  
someone wants to know precisely how much the NCC has spent revamping  
the LIR portal, a question to the CEO, CFO or a board member is all it  
takes.

Note that membership decisions about the activity plan have practical  
considerations too. In theory I suppose the activity plan could detail  
every line item of the budget for the coming year. And the membership  
could vote on each of these at the AGM. But would it work in practice?  
Would LIRs have the time or inclination to go through something that  
detailed? And would that be an efficient or effective way to manage  
the NCC? Can you imagine the number and extent of the rat-holes that  
such an approach would open up?

> There should be wide analysis BEFORE real development starts. ....
> I don't remember any global email from RIPE NCC asking members for  
> some
> feature requests for this very important tool.

I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps this WG could suggest some processes  
which would allow more discussion and review on requirements?

Note that there's also difficult balance to be struck here. As a  
predominantly technical group, LIRs will tend to focus on the minutae  
of implementation detail: buy $VENDOR's $MODEL hardware, use such and  
such a version of MySQL/PHP/Linux/whatever, etc, etc. It's all too  
easy to be side-tracked into these rat-holes. When that happens, no  
progress gets made and reaching consensus becomes harder. Which would  
leave the NCC in limbo if it needs to get membership approval/ 
consensus for (say) a reskin of the LIR portal.

That said, I believe it's not beyond the capabilities of this WG to  
develop suitable processes to work with NCC staff to produce  
requirements, minitor progress, review deliberables and so on. Though  
I'm sceptical if this list's membership or the NCC membership more  
generally has the time and inclination to take on that task. Hopefully  
your postings and this discussion will encourage others to prove me  
wrong.

> The process is wrong in general...

Well I think you might be over-stating things. Is there a problem  
here? It looks like there is. Communication could be better. Perhaps  
this WG should be more involved in scoping and reviewing requirements  
for the services provided by the NCC. But a mechanism for that hasn't  
been produced. Yet. IMO that doesn't mean things are generally broken.  
Or that there isn't room for improvement.

RIPE and the NCC are open and transparent. If policies or processes  
need to be tweaked or changed, there are mechanisms to do that. IMO  
it's up to people like you to come forward with constructive proposals  
for making things better.

> 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.

True. I fully agree that it's right and proper for the NCC membership  
to ask questions about staffing and budgets. It's probably not  
appropriate for the membership to dabble in operational detail: eg  
what a particular employee is paid or how they spend their time. I'd  
also point out that the NCC head count has hovered around 100 FTEs for  
a while now. If anything it's come down from ~110-120 a few years ago  
IIRC.

Broadly speaking the membership is content with the NCC's services and  
fees: though I accept there may well be grudging acceptance in some  
quarters. [There are a few services I'm convinced the NCC should not  
be doing but the membership disagrees. Oh well.] However if there was  
a significant concern about the fees and services, this would  
presumably be reflected in the votes at the AGM.

That doesn't mean to say that the NCC's staff costs and budgets don't  
have to be monitored and reviewed regularly. After all that's one of  
the responsibilities of being an NCC member. At a macro level, the  
membership elect a board to carry out some of that scrutiny. Even so  
the RIPE NCC is membership organisation, so it's ultimately up to the  
LIRs to decide what the NCC does and how it should be done.