After replying to a thread on NANOG about ARIN costs, and my perceived relationship to those discussed here about RIPE earlier, I received an interesting mail from someone who said: <quote>[X] and I did a bunch of surprise visits to the RIPE hostmasters, to see how many were on duty each time. Out of 28, and average of two were on duty during business hours, with all the others on self-assigned "special projects" which nobody could define. They're up to 118 employees, at last count.</quote> If this is true - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - I am, if it at all possible, even more concerned at the waste of our money by RIPE and the ridiculous increases in members fees. Also, why are there 118 employees anyway ? Does anyone from RIPE want to comment, honestly and without the usual diplomatic rhetoric and self-protectionism so familiar to those like me who like to compare RIPE to an EU gravy train, on these allegations ? I would be interested in seeing information about work rotas and staffing well in time before the next AGM so that possible motions can be proposed and voted on, as is proper. rgds, -- Peter Galbavy Knowtion Ltd.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:58:42PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: | After replying to a thread on NANOG about ARIN costs, and my perceived | relationship to those discussed here about RIPE earlier, I received an | interesting mail from someone who said: <quote>[X] and I did a bunch of | surprise visits to the RIPE hostmasters, to see how many were on duty each | time. Out of 28, and average of two were on duty during business hours, | with all the others on self-assigned "special projects" which nobody could | define. They're up to 118 employees, at last count.</quote> I've been a visitor in the NCC offices on more than one occasion and have seen more than two hostmasters doing their job. I'm also very satisfied with the performance of the hostmaster team at the moment. IP and AS assignments are well within acceptable levels. groet, Pim -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________
Peter, I share your sentiments on the size of the organisation, and the specific level of non-core activities that should not be funded by RIPE NCC membership fees, the RIPE meeting is one area that should be fully funded by those attending. The RIPE meeting should also have no impact to daily operations. I certainly feel that a higher level of productivity should have been deployed irrespective of the volume. Regards, Neil.
Hi, On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:53:04PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I share your sentiments on the size of the organisation, and the specific level of non-core activities that should not be funded by RIPE NCC membership fees, the RIPE meeting is one area that should be fully funded by those attending.
As far as I understand the numbers, the RIPE meetings actually cover more than their own (direct) costs.
The RIPE meeting should also have no impact to daily operations.
This is impossible. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 58512 (58485) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi Peter, I regret that you have reached such a conclusion regarding the RIPE NCC's operations. The RIPE NCC Hostmasters have worked very hard to significantly improve and stablise service levels over the last year. The history of the level of service can be seen at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/response-times.html As well as responding to requests for resources, Hostmasters are actively involved in projects that are clearly assigned and aimed at further improving efficiency and automation in service delivery. We continue to work on service improvements and look forward to our members actively contributing to this process via mailing lists and RIPE meetings. Regards, Paul Rendek RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek wrote:
As well as responding to requests for resources, Hostmasters are actively involved in projects that are clearly assigned and aimed at further improving efficiency and automation in service delivery.
... and information about these projects is available for scrutiny at ... ? I suggest that the operational management of RIPE be prepared to answer specific questions about staffing levels, productivity and the distribution of resources at the NCC. Peter
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:28:17 +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I suggest that the operational management of RIPE be prepared to answer specific questions about staffing levels, productivity and the distribution of resources at the NCC. At theses days a lot of people tend to twist the cent twice and like to put additional "prepared to answer" work on the desk of those guys who do the real work. It is sad enough that this additional work imposed most often by finance people has the only intent to reduce the financial funding of these workers.
Currently the RIPE anwering times are fine and I see no reason that they should be increased for us all because additional finance paperwork is demanded by those who twist the cent ... Have a nice holiday! Best Regards Oliver Bartels Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany oliver@bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0
Currently the RIPE anwering times are fine and I see no reason that they should be increased for us all because additional finance paperwork is demanded by those who twist the cent ...
Why do you make a direct, unbreakable link between 'answering times' and the budget ? There is *a* link, but it is not linear and certainly not transparent. I believe it is right to question how *my* money is spent and whether or not RIPE is providing an over-protected environment to its own staff and management while the rest of us are expected to pay up without question. Whether you like is or not, RIPE is a 'natural monopoly' and so should be very carefully watched to make sure it, as an organisation, is not abusing it's very priviledged position. Does anyone disagree that RIPE is a monopoly in it's territory ? Peter
At 12:58 PM 17-04-03 +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
After replying to a thread on NANOG about ARIN costs, and my perceived relationship to those discussed here about RIPE earlier, I received an interesting mail from someone who said: <quote>[X] and I did a bunch of surprise visits to the RIPE hostmasters, to see how many were on duty each time. Out of 28, and average of two were on duty during business hours, with all the others on self-assigned "special projects" which nobody could define. They're up to 118 employees, at last count.</quote>
If this is true - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - I am, if it at all possible, even more concerned at the waste of our money by RIPE and the ridiculous increases in members fees. Also, why are there 118 employees anyway ?
Where did you get 118? I count 98 on the RIPE NCC staff page: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/staff/index.html -Hank
Does anyone from RIPE want to comment, honestly and without the usual diplomatic rhetoric and self-protectionism so familiar to those like me who like to compare RIPE to an EU gravy train, on these allegations ? I would be interested in seeing information about work rotas and staffing well in time before the next AGM so that possible motions can be proposed and voted on, as is proper.
rgds, -- Peter Galbavy Knowtion Ltd.
participants (7)
-
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Neil J. McRae -
Oliver Bartels -
Paul Rendek -
Peter Galbavy -
Pim van Pelt