Folks, (distribution list trimmed - but not certain if this is a local-ir or ncc-services issue) --On 23 February 2004 11:55 +0100 Nick Hyrka <ncc@ripe.net> wrote:
... HIGHLIGHTS ========== ... - As announced by Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, two RIPE Meetings will be held in 2005. Based on the feedback from the community, this schedule will continue in 2006. The RIPE NCC will offer additional support to RIPE Working Groups to facilitate discussion and progress between RIPE Meetings.
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. If we leave aside the number of meetings per year for a moment, what I find most concerning about this is that a reasonably substantive change to the way that we operate as a policy-making community has been slipped in without any chance to express reservations or concerns, or hear reasoning one way or another. This is a dangerous path to tread as I am sure all will agree. 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'm not certain that having interim meetings works well anyway - from past experience I have seen much momentum at industry meetings where different groups then go off with the best intentions of having several sub-committee meetings before the next major meeting. For a variety of reasons, this does not then happen - and my experience was with the meetings held in London - for people working in and around London. In the RIPE case, there would be the added necessity to potentially travel around Europe or from further away to participate. The current meetings are worthwhile for those flying in from the USA or far east as there is much taking place - would the attraction still be there for any interim cut-down meeting? 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. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Thornton, PRT Systems Ltd Tel: +44 1825 740756 Fax: +44 1825 740136 GSM: +44 7885 373379