[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue May 7 22:19:14 CEST 2024
>> What’s happening here is something else though: Some loud folks are >> demanding a particular charging scheme while not having any concrete >> proposals about how to reduce expenses. > > compounding this, many of the ideas being floated on members-discuss > about charging schemes are coming up short on having a well-defined > strategic basis. > > The current charging scheme was introduced in 2013 on the basis of a > set of recommendations put together by a member-based task force, who > produced a policy document setting out strategic principles for what a > charging scheme should look like. > > These principles were then used to build candidate charging > schemes. The RIPE NCC membership was presented with options at a GM, > and they voted in a flat-rate charging scheme. The vote passed by an > overall majority, but there were plenty of people who voted against. > > Like today, some people at the time were vociferously pro- or con-, > but the process to change the charging scheme was done in consultation > with the membership and it was solid enough to last 11 years. > > Asking for reassessment after 11 years is legitimate, but just because > this reassessment hasn't happened immediately, that doesn't mean that > the exec board is ignoring the membership. It looks like the opposite > is the case: the current scheme is the output of a membership based > process; the message about changing this approach has clearly been > heard; and even though the demands for a non flat-rate charging scheme > run directly contrary to what the membership voted in the 2023 GM > (which was used as an input for options in the 2024 budget), a > commitment has been made to reassess this approach. Overall, this > seems like a pretty reasonable approach for the exec board to take. > > I would hope, and expect, that the process to re-assess what style of > charging scheme to adopt will start with a statement of principles + > analysis, which would then be used to work towards concrete proposals > which can then be put to a member vote. Starting out with solutions on > the members-discuss mailing list is no good unless we understand what > set of problems these solutions are expected to fix. "so say we all." well, some of us :) do you suggest the task force based approach again? randy
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]