|
Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)
2004-12-11 05:28:17
Hi Avri and John,
I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did...
I took this part:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
this issue.
To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as scheduled.
When he does start the Last Call, I assume it will be clearer than
this and that there will be an official, tracker-generated IETF Last
Call message to go with it.
One of the side-effects of doing this work in the IETF at large is
that I don't think we'll have two last call cycles (WG LC and IETF
LC), I think we'll just have a 4-week IETF LC. Also, the person who
is currently declaring consensus on the document issues (Harald, in a
chair-like capacity) will also end-up being the shepherding AD. So,
I am not sure how/if there will be an AD Review stage before IETF
LC...
Margaret
At 12:58 PM +0100 12/11/04, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi,
I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem
as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer
to) is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then
editorial, it will need to go through a second call before the IESG
can decide on it. I.e,, as you said, as soon as an -03 that is
substantially different comes out, the LC clock restarts.
I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to LC, is
a good thing to do at this point, even while some of us, myself
included, continue to argue on particular points we are
uncomfortable with.
a.
On 11 dec 2004, at 00.26, John C Klensin wrote:
Harald,
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a hypothetical document,
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02-bis.txt, which consists of the I-D as
modified by assorted comments and agreements on the IETF mailing
list or perhaps elsewhere.
Is that your intent?
If so, I am at least mildly concerned: normally, we have Last
Call reviews against stable documents, not documents that are
still actively changing, much less virtual documents in which
significant changes are being made out of band and in a way
that is very hard for someone casually participating in the IETF
to track. Do you have a better suggestion? Can we expect a
-03 for final review halfway through the Last Call window, with
the window being restarted if the changes are significant enough?
john
--On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 23:11 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
this issue.
(Not to mention that the secretariat still hasn't posted
version -02)
So - scanning back - I find that we have Bert's suggestion for
"principle" that seems to have met with no strong disfavour:
Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
IETF accounts,
they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
IETF.
(Scott preferred my variant:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to
the support of
the IETF
but I don't - this does not cover meeting fees)
So I propose the following consensus text - relative to
bcp-02, which is visible on
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-0
2.html>:
a) Add under "Principles", section 2.2, between item 4 and 5:
Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
IETF accounts,
they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
IETF.
b) Note, but DO NOT CHANGE, the following statements from
section 5.
I believe they address the suggestions Margaret has made for a
more detailed specification of money moving into and out of
the accounts.
5.2 IETF Meeting Revenues
Meeting revenues are an important source of funds for IETF
functions. The IAD, in consultation with the IAOC, sets the
meeting fees as part of the budgeting process. All meeting
revenues shall be credited to the appropriate IASA account.
5.3 Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind
.....
ISOC shall create appropriate administrative structures to
coordinate such donations with the IASA. In-kind resources are
owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall be reported
and accounted for in a manner that identifies them as such.
Designated monetary donations shall be credited to the
appropriate IASA account.
5.4 Other ISOC Support
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as
specified in Section 6. ISOC shall credit the appropriate IASA
accounts at least quarterly.
....
5.5 IASA Expenses
The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses
related to supporting the IETF may be debited from the IASA
account.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|