[ncc-services-wg] Re: [local-ir at ripe.net]RIPE 47 Meeting Report
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [local-ir at ripe.net]RIPE 47 Meeting Report
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Tue Feb 24 17:48:45 CET 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [chair hat off] >> I remember being at the RIPE47 meeting where this was >> announced as a fait >> accompli. What I don't remember was the RIPE47 meeting where >> there was any >> real debate or discussion about it. > > Hence why we have this issue! Although I am not sure I would call it fait accompli, there wasn't much discussion around it. I can agree with that. >> On the subject of meetings, it is accepted that mailing list >> discussions >> are moved forwards rapidly at the meetings, as we have a >> chance to discuss >> things face to face in working groups which in general leads >> to more rapid >> conclusion of policy decisions. >> If we have a new operating method where there are two 'major' >> RIPE meetings >> a year, and some 'lesser' committee meetings for the working >> groups, do we >> end up with people who have an interest now having to travel >> to all of the >> meetings rather than just the current RIPE meetings to ensure that >> something they care about is not being discussed without them present? > > I don't think this is always the case. Travel isn't always required > for meetings, conference calls could be used to deal with many of > the issues that are resolved face to face. I think the face to face meetings provide a great value. And I am also not very happy with two meetings per year. I think three would be better. >> So in short, I'm not at all convinced that two meetings a >> year is a Good >> Thing, nor am I particularly happy about the way it has been >> introduced. > > Well to me this sounds like a fudge also. I think 1 > meeting per quarter is more than adequate but the length > of the current RIPE meeting is frankly insane and there > is absolutely no reason for the meeting to be as long as > it is. But these are two different issues. I kind of agree that having meetings more frequent, but shorter is a good idea - where "more frequent" might equal to three times a year. > The fundemental issue still remains. There are still > too many random projects with questionable value going > on within the "RIPE". I have no idea what this has to do with meeting frequency. There is a well defined process to handle project of the RIPE NCC. Frequency of RIPE meetings, no. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQDuAcqarNKXTPFCVEQJWUACgi51x9HN0dQS7bGQBO+EHCMapEo0AoJKl CXWO4KToOwrz3BP5jj/C1u4b =3wNR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [local-ir at ripe.net]RIPE 47 Meeting Report
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]