Print

Print


> On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:31 , Richard Laager <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote:
>> I think we’re mostly on the same page.
> 
> I think so too.
> 
> Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression
> that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for
> suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem
> here. I think this is a no-brainer.

Agreed.

> In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are
> being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function
> or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the
> boolean return value.

OK

> Here's my thinking:
> 
> I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next
> year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way.

Agreed.

> We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a
> 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card.
> At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30
> ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also
> use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely
> necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the
> unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy
> another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also
> brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees.

Yep.

> Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash
> balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the
> minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only
> temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher.

== no brainer as far as I can see.

> One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are
> significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the
> participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to
> the Arista in a pinch.

In an emergency, the Junipers are also quite cheap on the refurb market
(I picked up a bunch of EX4200-48P for $259@ recently).

> The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes
> very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis.

Yes.

> The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd
> expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various
> vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by
> another member.

OK

> Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've
> missed?

Nope. I never meant to imply I was opposed to the idea of doing the 3-year contract,
especially if there’s no cost to splitting the payments as mentioned.

I would, however, like to see us consider providing mechanisms to provide greater
transparency to members under NDA as a general function of the organization. While
this event may not make it necessary, I think having that facility is generally better
than not having it, so I took this opportunity to push in that direction.

Owen