Pre-PDP discussion: "Yearly list of services by RIPE"
Dear all, this is the fifth suggestion: RIPE will create a yearly list of all services it provides to members or the general public This list will include at least: * Name of the service * Cost in time and money of maintaining and possibly extending this service * Cost in time and money of maintaining the backend needed for this service; this is to catch stuff that relies on old and brittle infra * Number of users if applicable/traceable per year * Number of queries/transactions if applicable/traceable per year * General usefulness of the service from RIPE's POV * Status of service, such as "active, supported", "deprecated", or "scheduled for decommissioning on YYYY-MM-DD" * A suggestion for the future status of the service If in doubt, RIPE will focus less on detailed interpretation and analysis and more on giving out as many hard facts and stats as possible. Interpretation will happen on the mailing lists anyway. RIPE will implement this policy in a light-weight manner that is not a drain on resources in and as of itself.
Dear Richard, a good idea, but wrong proposal format. Let's ask the Board to do such reports. -- Sergey Friday, March 15, 2013, 8:13:51 PM, you wrote: RH> Dear all, RH> this is the fifth suggestion: RH> RIPE will create a yearly list of all services it provides to RH> members or the general public RH> This list will include at least: RH> * Name of the service RH> * Cost in time and money of maintaining and possibly extending this service RH> * Cost in time and money of maintaining the backend needed for this RH> service; this is to catch stuff that relies on old and brittle infra RH> * Number of users if applicable/traceable per year RH> * Number of queries/transactions if applicable/traceable per year RH> * General usefulness of the service from RIPE's POV RH> * Status of service, such as "active, supported", "deprecated", or RH> "scheduled for decommissioning on YYYY-MM-DD" RH> * A suggestion for the future status of the service RH> If in doubt, RIPE will focus less on detailed interpretation and RH> analysis and more on giving out as many hard facts and stats as RH> possible. Interpretation will happen on the mailing lists anyway. RH> RIPE will implement this policy in a light-weight manner that is not RH> a drain on resources in and as of itself.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru> wrote:
a good idea, but wrong proposal format. Let's ask the Board to do such reports.
Wouldn't the Board simply ask RIPE NCC to provide this list? I don't really care who puts their name under the document; feedback by RIPE as to which part of it could most efficiently produce such a list may be helpful in this context. Richard
Hi,
a good idea, but wrong proposal format. Let's ask the Board to do such reports.
Wouldn't the Board simply ask RIPE NCC to provide this list?
Most likely: yes, unless there is a strong reason not to (legal, financial etc). The board is usually really responsive in my experience. It might not even need to go all the way to the board. Maybe NCC senior management can comment on this? Thanks, Sander
Dear ncc-services-wg, Sander, Richard, Such a list published annually would be quite valuable. It appears from multiple posts in recent years both here, in address-policy-wg as well as on members-discuss that the RIPE NCC membership is increasingly keen on being able to rationally participate in budgeting discussion and decisions rather than embrace the operational status quo, and this would serve as a tool to make such discussion considerably more informed. I'd like to second the request for RIPE NCC to comment on the possibility of providing this information in the form of a regular e-mail to ncc-services-wg, on its website, or as an appendix to the annual report. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 03/15/2013 10:22 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
a good idea, but wrong proposal format. Let's ask the Board to do such reports.
Wouldn't the Board simply ask RIPE NCC to provide this list?
Most likely: yes, unless there is a strong reason not to (legal, financial etc). The board is usually really responsive in my experience. It might not even need to go all the way to the board. Maybe NCC senior management can comment on this?
Thanks, Sander
Last GM there was (eventually) an activity plan with budget figures so it's a step. I'm sure NCC has all data needed so it shold just be a question of format. On Sun, 17 Mar 2013, David Monosov wrote:
Dear ncc-services-wg, Sander, Richard,
Such a list published annually would be quite valuable. It appears from multiple posts in recent years both here, in address-policy-wg as well as on members-discuss that the RIPE NCC membership is increasingly keen on being able to rationally participate in budgeting discussion and decisions rather than embrace the operational status quo, and this would serve as a tool to make such discussion considerably more informed.
I'd like to second the request for RIPE NCC to comment on the possibility of providing this information in the form of a regular e-mail to ncc-services-wg, on its website, or as an appendix to the annual report.
-- Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
On 03/15/2013 10:22 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
a good idea, but wrong proposal format. Let's ask the Board to do such reports.
Wouldn't the Board simply ask RIPE NCC to provide this list?
Most likely: yes, unless there is a strong reason not to (legal, financial etc). The board is usually really responsive in my experience. It might not even need to go all the way to the board. Maybe NCC senior management can comment on this?
Thanks, Sander
Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
Richard, On 15/03/2013 19:13, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Dear all,
this is the fifth suggestion:
RIPE will create a yearly list of all services it provides to members or the general public
We already make most of the information that is being requested in this proposal available in the RIPE NCC Annual Report, Activity Plan and the website, although it may not be quite in the format that is being proposed. One of the RIPE NCC Executive Board's functions is to check the costs and benefits of all RIPE NCC expenditures that are included in the Activity Plan. Therefore, we'll discuss this proposal at the Board meeting on the 26 March 2013 and make a decision on if and how this information could be better presented. Just one slight caveat, although the information is certainly available, producing it on a monthly basis in the form requested will add reporting overheads that might be deemed excessive. All the best Nigel
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
We already make most of the information that is being requested in this proposal available in the RIPE NCC Annual Report, Activity Plan and the website, although it may not be quite in the format that is being proposed.
That's the point; this list would be the one canonical place to learn about those services. Of course, this list could be included in existing publications, this may even be preferable. This proposal lists requirements only, RIPE NCC is welcome to implement them as they see fit.
Therefore, we'll discuss this proposal at the Board meeting on the 26 March 2013 and make a decision on if and how this information could be better presented.
That is great to hear. From your board POV, do you think it would make sense to still codify the requirement even if you decide to produce this list anyway?
From my community POV, I think it makes sense to make sure the service does not go away and will always fulfill a certain minimum.
Just one slight caveat, although the information is certainly available, producing it on a monthly basis in the form requested will add reporting overheads that might be deemed excessive.
I proposed yearly, not monthly, reports. Thanks, Richard PS: FYI, I am planning to write new versions of all five proposals towards the end of the week to allow for more feedback.
On 19/03/2013 11:51, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
We already make most of the information that is being requested in this proposal available in the RIPE NCC Annual Report, Activity Plan and the website, although it may not be quite in the format that is being proposed. That's the point; this list would be the one canonical place to learn about those services. Of course, this list could be included in existing publications, this may even be preferable. This proposal lists requirements only, RIPE NCC is welcome to implement them as they see fit. OK
Therefore, we'll discuss this proposal at the Board meeting on the 26 March 2013 and make a decision on if and how this information could be better presented. That is great to hear. From your board POV, do you think it would make sense to still codify the requirement even if you decide to produce this list anyway?
From my community POV, I think it makes sense to make sure the service does not go away and will always fulfill a certain minimum. Yes, agreed.
Just one slight caveat, although the information is certainly available, producing it on a monthly basis in the form requested will add reporting overheads that might be deemed excessive. I proposed yearly, not monthly, reports. Sorry about that.... must have missed the frequency. Yearly would certainly nicely overlay what we already produce in the activity plan. All the best
Nigel
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
From my community POV, I think it makes sense to make sure the service does not go away and will always fulfill a certain minimum.
Yes, agreed.
Great.
Sorry about that.... must have missed the frequency. Yearly would certainly nicely overlay what we already produce in the activity plan.
No worries; the fact that it's yearly is not exactly a coincidence, btw ;) Richard
No update is necessary to this proposal but as the 26th of March has passed, I would appreciate a short update from Nigel. As Nigel agreed that it makes sense to codify this either way, I would like to continue with this proposal normally. Richard
On 29/03/2013 23:58, Richard Hartmann wrote:
No update is necessary to this proposal but as the 26th of March has passed, I would appreciate a short update from Nigel.
As Nigel agreed that it makes sense to codify this either way, I would like to continue with this proposal normally.
During the board meeting this was indeed discussed, and the board, mindful of the fact that the Activity Plan and Budget document has already begun to evolve into the requested direction, has encouraged management to further continue in the direction of more transparency, especially regarding a full list of services currently being offered, and also to expand on plans to offer new services or stop services from being offered. In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership rather than the community). Nigel
On 02/04/2013 10:12, Nigel Titley wrote:
In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership rather than the community).
me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be appropriate to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM? Nick
On 02/04/2013 10:12, Nigel Titley wrote:
In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership rather than the community). me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be appropriate to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM? I'm sure we could, especially as we've had the first activity plan in
On 02/04/2013 10:48, Nick Hilliard wrote: the new format and could usefully discuss what the membership think of it Nigel
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be
appropriate to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM?
I'm sure we could, especially as we've had the first activity plan in the new format and could usefully discuss what the membership think of it
I don't think I will manage to make it to Dublin, but I will gladly participate remotely if possible; by proxy or otherwise. Again, if some or all of these proposals don't end up in PDP but still get things moving into the intended direction, I am more than willing to toss them. They are a means, not an end in and as of themselves. -- Richard
participants (7)
-
Daniel Stolpe -
David Monosov -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Richard Hartmann -
Sander Steffann -
Sergey Myasoedov