[members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions

Hi Denys,

Thank you for your email and your message in the forum about the 
Community Projects Fund. I've now posted a reply. To you and others 
reading this, please continue the discussion:

https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941

Best regards,

Gergana

-- 
Gergana Petrova
Community Development Manager
RIPE NCC

> From: Denys Fedoryshchenko<nuclearcat at nuclearcat.com>
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 20:04
> Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions
> To:members-discuss at ripe.net  <members-discuss at ripe.net>
>
>
> As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this
> opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC
> provides: Forum, athttps://forum.ripe.net
>
> I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement
> of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we
> should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help,
> and also feedback and suggestions.
>
> For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund
> open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic
> community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my
> country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to
> evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum
> is good place for that.
>
> Link to discussion:
> https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1
>
> My post (if some people don't like forums):
> ```
> After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event
> at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to
> improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general.
>
>      1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This
> approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we
> have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published
> videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate
> questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents
> attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access
> to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive
> discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer
> technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced
> stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their
> presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were
> transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those
> with disabilities.
>
>      2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for
> discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The
> contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would
> prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and
> responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I
> misunderstand something.
>
>      3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at
> least include a project website and contact information.
>
>      4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance
> of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare
> questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For
> example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant
> doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements.
> Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many
> ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic
> engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions
> with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is
> presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide
> insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for
> the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can
> be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project
> evaluation.
>
>      5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in
> presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more
> transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes
> of these projects. (APNIC does that)
>
>      6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For
> example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting
> Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information
> hinders our ability to follow up on project developments.
>
> There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the
> processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken
> into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund
> open house events.
> ```
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kwhite%40ripe.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240508/8b5e7a44/attachment.html>