[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastien Brossier
sebastien at brossier.org
Fri Apr 12 12:08:56 CEST 2024
On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM. So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?". So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question. Hi, I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget. I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later. Regards, Sebastien Brossier
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]