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