Re: Repository services and budget

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 11:25 PM -0800 1/7/97, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Hank,
>
> At 10:41 PM -0800 1/7/97, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >But even with 20-30 registrars, you don't want the expensive technical
> >people doing the administrative tasks.  I keep thinking of Dilbert by the
> >xerox machine.  A $25K/yr (even part time) sec'ty is necessary.
>
> 	There is a very serious downsizing trend for administrative staff
> in organizations.  It's been underway for, perhaps, 10 years.  Given
> voicemail, email, and other computer-based applications, the specific
> functions for an administrative assistant are considerably reduced.  They
> become cost-effective when a group is up toward 10 people, I believe,
> helping with general office and coordination functions, travel
> arrangements, and other logistics issues.  These are not serious
> requirements for a one- or two-person operation.
>
> 	It can be VERY easy to inflate the requirements for the repository.
> I'm suggesting that it be kept as lean as is feasible.
>

God help us all. The IAHC is a Dilbert cartoon in real life... ;)

Downsizing isn't something you want to even *THINK* about. For such a
critical part of the internet infrastructure, you must have redundancy.
If it means having two secretaries doing nothing in order to guarantee
real 24/7 service 100% of the time, then do it. The same goes triple
for engineering staff.

You are not going to be able to do this under a million dollars and
guarantee round the clock service to the internet community. Registrars
are active in most time zones requiring round the clock service. Now
you do realize that you need three shifts of support staff to cover all
24 hours of the day?

If you could manage to get the entire world to change it's business
hours to that of the registry, I'm sure you could consider downsizing.
You just can't nickle and dime this kind of thing.

[A little birdie tells me NSI/NSF has now got $20 million in the fund.]

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.