On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Gert,
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:20:07PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
I sympathize with this point of view. Saying that NCC should pay for something or hire someone to do something while we do have recurring discussion about member fees is imho at least careless.
I totally disagree with this view. Someone will always complain that the fees are too high (and I might even agree with them, like, for a non-for-profit, the RIPE NCC member fees *are* high) - but using that as an argument to stop any sort of investment does not lead anywhere useful.
Of course we shouldn't be wasting money carelessly - but spending money to improve what the NCC is there for (being a secretariat for the members' benefit) is not automatically "wasting money".
While I do understand your point of view, I still keep in mind the ROI point of view (if we treat having archivist on duty as "sort of investment"). I haven't seen any potential benefit (let's keep the "sort of investment" terminology) from keeping formats more consistent (kind of accusation from the original post). And believe me or not - while I was making recently some stats about active members of our assotiation just for last 10 years (1/3 of our history), I was astonished by number of ways the data were provided during those _recent_ years. Been there recently, the same way, I suppose, Shane was. Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland