As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC provides: Forum, at https://forum.ripe.net I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help, and also feedback and suggestions. For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum is good place for that. Link to discussion: https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1 My post (if some people don't like forums): ``` After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general. 1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those with disabilities. 2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I misunderstand something. 3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at least include a project website and contact information. 4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements. Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project evaluation. 5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes of these projects. (APNIC does that) 6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information hinders our ability to follow up on project developments. There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house events. ```