On 19/02/2018 16:51, Nigel Titley wrote:

I vote for option 3. 


> At the last Executive board meeting I took an action to start a
> discussion on the RIPE-list about the notion of remuneration for the
> RIPE Chair.
> We were fortunate that Rob B had an employer who didn't mind him
> devoting unlimited amounts of time to the RIPE community. Now that Rob
> is no longer with us we need to decide whether we wish to restrict the
> occupant of the RIPE Chair to being someone who works for such an
> employer or whether we wish for the community to financially support the
> occupant of the role.
> If we decide that we *do* wish them to be supported then the question
> arises of where this support is to come from. The RIPE Community does
> not exist as such; it has no financial resources so this question may
> touch on how we wish the community to evolve.
> I'm going to throw some ideas into the pool. I don't necessarily support
> any of these, but offer them as a starting point for discussion.
> 1. We legally constitute the RIPE community, enabling it to hold
> financial resources and raise income.
> 2. We restrict the RIPE chairmanship to those who can afford to support
> themselves (RIPE NCC would continue to pay expenses)
> 3. The RIPE NCC pays a salary to the RIPE Chair
> All of these possibilities have pros and cons, which you can probably
> work out for yourselves.
> I invite anyone with an opinion to join the debate. Try to keep your
> contributions concise and to the point. Try and remain courteous.
> If you have connected your ripe-list email contact to a trouble-ticket
> machine then I will call down my curses on your children and your
> children's children unto the seventh generation. Don't risk it...
> All the best
> Nigel Titley
> Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board

Reply via email to