Moin, So, first of all; +1 to Randy's point. Second:
Its okay :) Some members doesnt want transperancy. Im happy about they leave comments and show their position.
What I presume these +1-ing members (like me) are mildly frustrated with is a set of specific members--without pointing fingers--being relatively avid in issuing 'transparency' asks, while it becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain whether the objective here is transparency, or whether transparency becomes a vehicle to make requests targeted at drowning the organization in repetitive unnecessary tasks and preventing consensus seem reasonable. And for all other points, I refer to my comment from the last meeting: We couldn't agree on something when the task would be 'Every member gets a free ball of ice cream'; I mean... Vanilla, Strawberry, Chocolate, without Milk... decisions to be made! Heck, for what it's worth, I doubt that _two_ LIRs could resolve this question (or... one, if the one offered a free ball of ice cream would be me). The level of detail ask for, e.g., the (rapidly decreasing!) rack use in AMS... I am certain there would be enough questions phrased as comments alone on that to double the LIR fee next year (to pay for the increased operating cost of the mailinglist...) So, please... let the RIPE NCC do its job. If you want to get more intricately involved in the daily operations of systems, I suggest to go here: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/staff/careers-at-the-ripe-ncc/ With best regards, Tobias P.S.:
Waiting next...
Oh, is there a queue? Do me, do me! de.wybt! If all the cool kids^W LIRs get this, I want in, too! -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl