> On 4 Jun 2020, at 14:59, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> People whose employers won't support them with time and salary (or
> independent contractors who lose income when they can't work) are similarly
> disadvantaged. Eliminating those disadvantages might add useful additional
> perspectives to indviidual working groups and to the wg chair collective.
>
> I think providing this funding might well reduce those barriers to
> participation.
Your point is well made Joe. But I think it’s a bit misguided even if though it
is well intentioned. In cases of genuine hardship, it’s reasonable to be able
to offer some level of financial support as and when it’s needed. A mechanism
where the RIPE Chairman (say) is able to apply some discretion and common sense
seems the right way forward here. While I’m sympathetic to those who may be
disadvantaged from volunteering, we need to be careful not to attract
charlatans who just want to be a co-chair for the freebies.
IMO it’s unreasonable to make that support the norm or for a co-chair to make a
habit of relying on that support. That would be the start of a very slippery
slope. For instance, it amplifies the recently expressed concerns about the NCC
having undue influence over the RIPE leadership. perceived conflicts of
interest, etc. Regularising this arrangement sets a precedent which could mean
offers of support get extended further -- freebies for all presenters? -- that
ultimately leads to the NCC paying for everyone to go to RIPE meetings.
One issue here is where and how to draw the line. The current proposal says "in
exceptional cases” and I think that’s more than good enough.
Full disclosure: Axel and Rob kindly waived the meeting fee for me when my
business was struggling ~10 years ago. My airmiles paid for travel and
accommodation.
