[ncc-services-wg] Should we have a RIPE archivist?

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

Gert,

> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:20:07PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> > I sympathize with this point of view. Saying that NCC should pay for
> > something or hire someone to do something while we do have recurring
> > discussion about member fees is imho at least careless.
> 
> I totally disagree with this view.  Someone will always complain that 
> the fees are too high (and I might even agree with them, like, for a 
> non-for-profit, the RIPE NCC member fees *are* high) - but using that
> as an argument to stop any sort of investment does not lead anywhere
> useful.
> 
> Of course we shouldn't be wasting money carelessly - but spending money
> to improve what the NCC is there for (being a secretariat for the 
> members' benefit) is not automatically "wasting money".

While I do understand your point of view, I still keep in mind the ROI
point of view (if we treat having archivist on duty as "sort of
investment"). I haven't seen any potential benefit (let's keep the "sort
of investment" terminology) from keeping formats more consistent (kind
of accusation from the original post). And believe me or not - while I
was making recently some stats about active members of our assotiation
just for last 10 years (1/3 of our history), I was astonished by number
of ways the data were provided during those _recent_ years. Been there
recently, the same way, I suppose, Shane was. 

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland