[ripe-list] Discussion on financial support for RIPE Chair

If we have options 1 or 3, we are saying that the RIPE chair is a
full-time position -- is that a statement we're all comfortable
making?  (Hans Petter, I would love to hear your view about how much
time your responsibilities take, throughout the year)

I think #1 would entail a large raising of RIPE meeting rates (which
are highly subsidized by the NCC) to pay for the full time chair and
part time meeting organizers, etc.   I love RIPE and how it feels more
about learning and less commercial than NANOG (I pay my own way to
come out to RIPE, wake up at 6am for PC calls, etc because I feel that
this community is important!).  With #1 we would have to find a large
money stream, which would probably mean lots of sponsorship[1] and
corporate involvement

With #3, would there be any legal issues with the employment? I know
pretty much nothing of Dutch labor law - I'm guessing RIPE NCC would
know a lot more!  Any weirdnesses with country of residence while
getting paid by a Dutch entity ?

Leslie

[1] I want to reiterate that I am very happy with the level of
sponsorship right now!  The sponsors feel like a natural piece of the
meeting -- they are visible, but not intrusive.  It makes me more
comfortable engaging with them, rather than if there were 20 sponsor
tables all vying for my attention.


On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Keith Mitchell <keith at smoti.org> wrote:
> I too am inclined towards a variant of option 3.
>
> - option 1 to me is simply too much heavyweight structure for a single-
>   person role.
>
> - option 2 I feel is exclusionary to otherwise well-matched candidates,
>   and places the role at risk of capture by employer vested interests.
>
> On 02/20/18 06:25, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>
>> Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around
>> ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated.
>
> Indeed, there ought to be models that would uphold the RIPE Chair's
> autonomy and policy/editorial independence while still being funded by
> the RIPE NCC. This might involve funding via long-term grant/endowment
> commitments rather than annual budget revenue stream-derived salary,
> fixed-term appointment, and/or other arms-length approaches along
> Malcolm's suggestions.
>
> It's very possible other organisations (not necessarily in our sector)
> have already figured out models for such arrangements, and it may be a
> good idea to research these for appropriate approaches.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>> I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we
>> should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually
>> dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be
>> "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct
>> instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we
>> can do better than that.
>
>> The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect
>> his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE
>> community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those
>> terms.
>>
>> For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be
>> terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process
>> has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to
>> be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for
>> removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be
>> done back into the community.
>